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 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: some trivial questions? Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2017 22:36:30 +0100 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <6a5368c5-f015-4dcb-9291-e77b40fa1bf1@googlegroups.com> <39330489-ec8b-481f-bcff-a5b7d1a2d8e3@googlegroups.com> <7c68eace-8a03-4bfc-806d-aa78a453f97f@googlegroups.com> <9c50e205-f733-45d9-9536-8dc0dac446f5@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: MajGvm9MbNtGBKE7r8NgYA.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 Content-Language: en-US X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: feeder.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:48825 Date: 2017-11-11T22:36:30+01:00 List-Id: On 2017-11-11 16:38, AdaMagica wrote: > Direct visibility in this context is use-visibility in contrast to > visibility by selection (selected_component). So I do not understand > what you are trying to say. There is no need in that concept. The same entity may be visible under several names like "Standard.A.B.C", "A.B.C", "C", "My_Renamed_C". > Would you favor use-clauses everywhere, No. However if I designed Ada, I would pay far more attention to early prevention of name conflicts. Probably I would never allowed hiding, e.g. if multiple use clauses would hide something that should make these clauses illegal. I would reworked overloading in a way that each overloaded item would always have a distinct name, e.g. derived from the subprogram signature etc. > i.e. (not Ada) an implied use-clause with any with-clause? No. > But for resolving visibility conflicts, we need selector_names, so we > need a term for this kind of visibility. It is just a name under which the entity is visible. The discussion was around "with" used to denote dependency and "use" to control visibility. I agree with that separation of roles. Now talking about visibility, the part of the with-clause related to visibility should rather be a use-clause. E.g. we have use-package and use-type clauses. It would be only logical to have use-child clause for the purpose of giving visibility to a specific child unit. Or maybe none. I would not be horrified if this were legal: procedure Hello_To_No_With is begin Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line ("I need no with to greet the world!"); end Hello_To_No_With; -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de