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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ab3fadb7cac7363c
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!94.75.214.39.MISMATCH!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?=
 =?utf-8?Q?=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: using `use' : what is the best practice ?
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 16:11:07 +0200
Organization: Ada @ Home
Message-ID: <op.vww0ctwvule2fv@douda-yannick>
References: <57e75a35-058c-4172-9a3d-e11e7c5f7697@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
 <15kaiizx7r3pu$.3bgefr92z5i7$.dlg@40tude.net> <m21uz560ir.fsf@pushface.org>
 <1ofcb8g6dasre.uvhg77u842n6$.dlg@40tude.net> <m2wrgx4kj7.fsf@pushface.org>
 <1w9xkam751gnx$.1p76eva14vlua.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: fGpkzlUfcOSQVUiZJOXhgg.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.11 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:20725
Date: 2011-06-11T16:11:07+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Tue, 07 Jun 2011 21:38:32 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  =

<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a =C3=A9crit:
> I would prefer stricter rules on
> declarations hiding each other (requiring explicit resolution of all
> conflicts) [*]. I definitely want a stronger than "use", transitive  =

> clause
> to incorporate the declaration scope of a package into the scope of  =

> another
> package. I would like to have multiple parents too.
>
> -----------------------
> * When people play this card against MI, they forget that packages all=
ow
> exactly same. And if fully qualified names were a solution for package=
s,
> why it could not be for MI as well?
Yes, right. People frightened of MI seems to have not understood this is=
  =

all about name conflict [*]. And we all know the way to solve this.

[*] And that is purely syntactical, this is not even conceptual! So MI i=
s  =

probably rejected mostly for syntactical-like matters.

-- =

=E2=80=9CSyntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.=E2=80=9D  [Ep=
igrams on  =

Programming =E2=80=94 Alan J. =E2=80=94 P. Yale University]
=E2=80=9CStructured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.=
=E2=80=9D [Idem]
=E2=80=9Cc++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */=E2=80=9D=
 [Anonymous]