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!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!newsfeed.xs3.de!io.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.rrsoftware.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: some trivial questions?
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:45:40 -0600
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <oulbfk$ot8$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: 
 <6a5368c5-f015-4dcb-9291-e77b40fa1bf1@googlegroups.com><ff607ea1-9d64-441b-b5e6-1a4377a5a199@googlegroups.com><f8d6f17c-2313-4391-99bf-b339f8524da5@googlegroups.com>
 <wccvainc94w.fsf@TheWorld.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:45:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk;
 posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226";
	logging-data="25512"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.7246
Xref: feeder.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:48946
Date: 2017-11-16T18:45:40-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@TheWorld.com> wrote in message 
news:wccvainc94w.fsf@TheWorld.com...
> gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com writes:
>
>> If "use" implied "with", there would be sometimes more ambiguities to
>> sort out (on "use A, B", B could then mean a library-level package
>> called B, or A.B (a child or a nested package of A). Ouch!
>
> No, that's not how "use A, B;" works.  The things in A and B
> become potentially use-visible after the use clause, so the
> B cannot be something made use-visible by the "use A".
>
> So it's not equivalent to "use A; use B;".
>
>> That being said, I find a "with then use" clause would be useful.
>
> Yes, it would!  But the "with then" is just noise.
> Plain "use" (in a context clause, which is the only place
> where a "with" clause is allowed) would be more readable.

Banning package use everywhere would be more maintainable. ;-)

Seriously, the less one uses "use" on packages (as opposed to types), the 
better. I'd be strongly opposed to anything that made it easier to "use" 
use; it's going to the wrong way. If you really need visibility, use "use 
type".

                                       Randy.