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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!gegeweb.org!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Your wish list for Ada 202X
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:14:11 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <lj96uk$u9t$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <7f1c01c5-3563-4b94-9831-152dbbf2ecdc@googlegroups.com>
 <b00ca00f-e714-457e-b720-805fb5d455e5@googlegroups.com>
 <lj8grf$che$1@dont-email.me>
 <9f156351-e3d0-4d86-b816-1d5e09ee69da@googlegroups.com>
 <lj8n3j$pki$1@dont-email.me> <lj8v7s$l5o$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1398284052 31037 69.95.181.76 (23 Apr 2014 20:14:12 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 20:14:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:19546
Date: 2014-04-23T15:14:11-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Jeffrey Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> wrote in message 
news:lj8v7s$l5o$1@dont-email.me...
> On 04/23/2014 08:43 AM, J-P. Rosen wrote:
>>>
>> Ah! Another case of "I don't want to use the use clause, give me
>> something else that avoids writing these damn long names".
>
> While I agree with your sentiment, I think there's something else involved 
> here, too. The Ada-95 version of the PragmAda Reusable Components include 
> protected versions of the data structures, and in numerous cases users 
> chose the protected version for purely sequential software in order to 
> obtain the Object.Operation notation that a protected type offers. This 
> was true even for users who used use clauses, and so chose to write
>
> Queue.Put (Item => Thingy);
>
> rather than
>
> Put (Onto => Queue, Item => Thingy);
>
> I don't think this is an issue of saving keystrokes, but a belief that the 
> former is easier to read than the latter.
>
> With the addition of such notation for tagged types in 2007, exposure to 
> this difference has become more widespread, so desiring V'Image rather 
> than T'Image (V) may not be entirely about saving keystrokes.

It's not, it's mainly about wanting to avoid the effort to look up the exact 
subtype of an object before writing 'Image. That wastes far more time than 
the few keystrokes ever would take. (Which is redoubled if one has to find 
out whether Image exists or some function has to be used instead.)

                                        Randy.