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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,60e2922351e0e780 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-01 12:01:36 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!tiscali!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!proxad.net!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: Marius Amado Alves Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Clause "with and use" Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 19:59:29 +0000 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <3FA2CDCB.500F4AF0@fakeaddress.nil> <3FA3B796.EA1CAB99@fakeaddress.nil> <3FA3DDF8.6C9539EF@fakeaddress.nil> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1067716813 45252 80.67.180.195 (1 Nov 2003 20:00:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 20:00:13 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <3FA3DDF8.6C9539EF@fakeaddress.nil> X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Nov 2003 19:59:20.0191 (UTC) FILETIME=[A35D00F0:01C3A0B2] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1908 Date: 2003-11-01T19:59:29+00:00 On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 16:23, Gautier Write-only wrote: > The "with Parent;" is implicit, I should have mentioned. > Just like a written "with Parent.Child;" means > "with Parent; with Parent.Child;" in Ada95. Ok. Technically I don't think I have anything against the strictly syntactic sugar rule. However this is just one more of the thousand 1 man week modifications. And to me there are a lot of other such modifications that are much more useful e.g. the recently discussed number base extension to 36.