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=ham
	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: 2003-11-17 01:01:41 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Clause "with and use"
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 10:04:27 +0100
Message-ID: <si2hrv4oshllsa65dvrknrq2oabjs2r00a@4ax.com>
References: <bormns$1i4d87$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <3FB1609E.D56E315C@fakeaddress.nil>
 <borog2$1fpdhl$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <bebbba07.0311122326.690bd121@posting.google.com>
 <bp0nqn$afi$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
 <bebbba07.0311132145.58a4541e@posting.google.com>
 <bp22op$1ltd$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
 <bebbba07.0311141523.3c523f8c@posting.google.com>
 <G-udnYiJ3bOJ2SuiRVn-tg@comcast.com> <3FB6513B.DA6E53CA@fakeaddress.nil>
 <X7idnWUKxp8GIyuiRVn-vg@comcast.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.116)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1069059699 56597530 212.79.194.116 (16 [77047])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2558
Date: 2003-11-17T10:04:27+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:02:34 -0500, "Robert I. Eachus"
<rieachus@comcast.net> wrote:

>No I look at the "with implies use" proposal and get a splitting 
>headache when thinking about how it could be worded.  Answer me just one 
>little problem, and I might think about it:
>
>use Foo; use Bar;
>package...
>
>Now if there is a package Foo and it contains a package Bar, and there 
>is a package Bar in the compilation environment, which one do you get if 
>any, and why?

Exactly the same Ada would do. The effect should be defined to be
literally same as for:

with Foo; use Foo; with Bar; use Bar;

So Foo.Bar cannot play any role here. Note that the proposal says
*implies* "with Bar;". After all Foo.Bar cannot be "with"-ed and thus
cannot be implied.

So far I see no problems with this proposal.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de