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: 103376,79bbf7e359159d0d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-04-05 09:40:07 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!freenix!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: Wilhelm.Spickermann@t-online.de (Wilhelm Spickermann) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: RE: newbie can't get exceptions to work! Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 18:37:18 +0200 (CEST) Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 986488747 40260 137.194.161.2 (5 Apr 2001 16:39:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 16:39:07 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Return-Path: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: <25%y6.2364$jz.201607@www.newsranger.com> X-Sender: 0211750756-0001@t-dialin.net Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.3 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:6515 Date: 2001-04-05T18:37:18+02:00 On 05-Apr-01 Ted Dennison wrote: ... > This is a very good example of why "newbies" should be discouraged > from using > the "use" clause. It just adds a whole extra possible level of > confusion and > screw-ups. Some people (myself included) believe that "use" should > almost never > be used. But even those who disagree with that view would agree that > it has to be used wisely. I agree -- as one of those "who disagree". The stack may be also a good example for a use of "use" which is acceptable for me. If we define an abstract data _type_ instead of the given abstract data object we get calls like "Push (Stackname, Object_To_Be_Pushed)" and thats ok for me (as long as it has the "usual" (:-)) semantics of a stack). > be used wisely. A rank novice will not yet have the knowledge > required to make > that determination properly. So novices should really just stick with > full > named-notation. When they get their feet under them, then they can go > and decide > when "use" is appropriate and when it is not. Fully agreed. But running into the problems with this example is much more impressing than everything we could say. Wilhelm