From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,89cb2d7ffc7421c9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns13feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s22.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" Organization: jrcarter at acm dot org User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ripple effect References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.201.97.176 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mchsi.com X-Trace: attbi_s22 1157423627 12.201.97.176 (Tue, 05 Sep 2006 02:33:47 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 02:33:47 GMT Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2006 02:33:47 GMT Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6452 Date: 2006-09-05T02:33:47+00:00 List-Id: 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