Re: with use - again [Was: Manifesto against Vector]

[Mark Lorenzen <mark.lorenzen@ofir.dk>]

Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

> Russ wrote:
>
>  
>> with/use Ada.Integer_Text_IO;>
>
> The last attempt  on this was "with use Ada.Integer_Text_IO;". Then there
> was a "with Ada.Integer_Text_IO; use <>;" as well.
>
>> is cleaner and simpler than
>> 
>> with Ada.Integer_Text_IO; use Ada.Inteqer_Text_IO
>
> You know that this has cost me when I first read Ada Tutorials and tried to
> understand what what was going on. Every package was "use"d and I was
> wondering: And where is this function, procedure, exception coming from?
>
> The use of "use" should be forbidden in tutorials.

The use of "use" should just be forbidden. This would save us the
endless discussions of why "use" can't implicitly "with" a package.

>
>> And I also that it is a trivial matter to parse the former to produce
>> the latter. I could do it myself in a few minutes. Nor does it break
>> compatibility with legacy code in any way. I see absolutely no
>> reasonable objection to "with/use" (but I have a funny feeling that I
>> may soon be bombarded with a lot of unreasonable objections).
>
> Why unreasonable? "use" make reading code harder. "package IIO renames 
> Ada.Inteqer_Text_IO" is far better on the reading side. 
>
>> By the way, the following is for those of you who prefer to read
>> everything twice:
>  
> Well since I never "use" anything on the outside level and never use in
> public part of any package I never read anything twice.
>
> On a Side note: I never use a "*" in java imports as well.
>
> With Regards
>
> Martin
>
> -- 
> mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
> http://www.ada.krischik.com

- Mark Lorenzen