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: 103376,2a687662f09731bb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!hwmnpeer01.lga!hwmedia!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!p02!dukeread01.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: David Emery <demery@cox.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.5 (Macintosh/20050711)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Don't use the "use" clause
References: <dld0t5$df3$1@sunnews.cern.ch>
 <ZqCdnSOLI6WepefeRVn-uw@comcast.com>
 <slrndnlfs8.1pa.bogus_addy@tango.mindfuq.org> <m2acg5i1ko.fsf@grendel.local>
 <dlelkn$g6l$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
 <slrndnoa1k.22e.bogus_addy@tango.mindfuq.org>
 <1132227919.9036.51.camel@sonnenregen> <u3blv30wu.fsf@acm.org>
 <1132233886.11218.11.camel@sonnenregen> <ulkzmsw5v.fsf@acm.org>
 <slrndnv9qv.1r7.bogus_addy@tango.mindfuq.org> <op.s0h8tifc5afhvo@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <op.s0h8tifc5afhvo@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <kAngf.38218$4n5.24291@dukeread01>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:36:47 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.249.249.75
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cox.net
X-Trace: dukeread01 1132594576 24.249.249.75 (Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:36:16 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:36:16 EST
Organization: Cox Communications
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6515
Date: 2005-11-21T12:36:47-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I've been in the middle of several debates on this.  My personal strong belief and experience has been that qualified names are very useful in comprehension, particularly trying to grasp the 'big picture' of software structure.  

So in one previous life, when handed a package that did not have qualified names in it, the first thing I'd do is add the qualified names.  

it's possible to construct programming environments that can show you the unambiguous source for each name/operator.  But such information is transient, it only lasts for as long as you have the mouse/etc there.  Often I'm sufficiently "Luddite" that I print out and scribble over hardcopies of programs.

			dave

Ed Falis wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:28:25 -0500, Anonymous Coward <spam@spam.com> wrote:
> 
>> I don't only oppose it because of the ambiguity, but even when there
>> is no ambiguity, it's a severe inconvenience to have to grep a large
>> tree to hunt down a declaration.  Then to possibly get multiple hits
>> and have to compare two lists of packages to discover which hit is the
>> correct one.  By the time you make it to the declaration you're
>> looking for, you've forgotten why you need to look at it
> 
> 
> If you were using a modern editor, with Ada cross-referencing, you  
> wouldn't have this problem.  GPS, emacs Ada mode, ObjectAda and quite a  
> few others provide this.
> 
> - Ed