Re: Ripple effect

["Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.not.jrcarter@acm.not.spam.org>]

Robert A Duff wrote:
> 
> Who or whom?  ;-) [did he say he'd probably name the language after]

You didn't say. I mentioned the main groups of language names: acronyms, 
things (Java), and people (Ada, Dylan). You said you'd probably go the 
people route.

> Not sure about "use" but "use type" is a bad idea -- should be the
> default.

OK. In the discussion, your language used "use" in context clauses as 
equivalent to Ada's "with" (which sounds like a good idea), and you 
didn't show any equivalent to Ada's "use". I thought I recalled you 
saying that the language didn't have one, but I guess IDRC.

If you do have an equivalent to Ada's "use", maybe it should be called 
"see".

> Sorry, but I've lost the context here.  What does "otherwise unneeded"
> mean?

> Not sure what "unnecessarily" means.  I mean, if you say "with A" and
> refer to A.Mumble, that's "necessary", right?

My understanding is that B has "with A;" but doesn't reference A; A is 
"otherwise unneeded" because it's needed to make C (il)legal.

> Yes.  Do you think it should be otherwise? [transitive context clauses]

It seems awkward. We're working on a project. I create package B, which 
has "with A;" on it. I thought B would need it, but I was wrong, and 
forgot to remove it. You're developing C and need to use B, so you have 
"with B;" on C. Then you realize you need to use A and write some code 
that references A. You forget to put "with A;" on C, but it compiles OK 
because B references A. Then I clean up B and remove the reference to A 
from it. Now C doesn't compile. That seems undesirable.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Now look, Col. Batguano, if that really is your name."
Dr. Strangelove
31