Re: Don't use the "use" clause

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

brian.b.mcguinness@lmco.com writes:

> I do not have a lot of experience with Ada.  I am working on a time
> and date package that uses routines from standard Ada packages.  At
> first I tried writing the code without any "use" clauses but I kept
> running into problems so I finally gave up in frustration and "used"
> all of the standard packages I "with"ed.  I suspect that many other
> people have the same experience.
>
> Frankly, I see no reason to avoid "use".  The whole point of
> providing overloading is so that you can have several functions or
> procedures with the same name.  And I am perfectly happy to ignore
> any coding guideline that results in endless frustration without
> serving any useful purpose.

Well, I suppose it depends on the environment you're working in. If
the result of that approach is that the code you've worked on gets
binned so that it can be done again 'properly' (ie, according to the
codes of practice appropriate to the SIL rating of the project) then
you might as well have stayed at home.

You may be like many engineers dumped into a project needing Ada
experience but without the proper training, in which case my
sympathies.

I had fun with an Ada DBMS that was written in '83 with 'use'; the
only way to make sense of it under '95 was to remove all the use
clauses. Most compilers are going to have trouble browsing to the
correct overloaded subprogram if the code doesn't compile.

That said, I've just looked at some of my own code and there is a fair
sprinkling of 'use' -- mainly for Ada.Text_IO and
internally-instantiated generic container packages. About 80 lines out
of 10_000.

--S