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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6cb2525ffbfe23ce
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Why both "with" and "use"?
Date: 1999/02/13
Message-ID: <m3lni1ucb9.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 444103587
Sender: matt@mheaney.ni.net
References: <36C5B28C.F32C43A4@jps.net> <m2socaxfjw.fsf@wf-rch.cirr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 15:11:11 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-02-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org> writes:

> But in most cases, being able to know the package the item is declared
> in is quite useful.

Yes, this is true, but not using a use clause isn't the only way to
effect this goal.  Careful naming conventions make the origin of the
entity obvious, in spite of the presence of a use clause.

For example:

package Digitizer_Id_Types is

   type Digitizer_Id is range 1 .. 2;

end Digitizer_Id_Types;


with Digitizer_Id_Types;  use Digitizer_Id_Types;
...

   Digitizer : Digitizer_Id;


It's pretty obvious that type Digitizer_Id comes from package
Digitizer_Id_Types.  No amount of package renaming or subtype
declarations are going to make it any more obvious.

These days, I hardly ever don't use a use clause, and I've formed the
tentative opinion that Ada should have defined the with clause to have
the semantics of both with and use.