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,WEIRD_PORT
	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: 2003-11-06 02:55:21 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!uninett.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail
From: Preben Randhol <randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@pvv.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Clause "with and use"
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:55:21 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PVV
Message-ID: 
 <slrnbqka4p.q3.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
References: <3FA2CDCB.500F4AF0@fakeaddress.nil>
 <bebbba07.0310312309.77c6d82f@posting.google.com> <uism44c1k.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <3FA3B412.AF3BEB96@fakeaddress.nil> <uekwr4u1k.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <Ve5pb.36825$294.35899@nwrdny03.gnilink.net>
 <bebbba07.0311022159.345d7cab@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbqcpnq.eeq.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3FA6D275.924D5750@fakeaddress.nil>
 <slrnbqf1is.nb.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <1067951806.729117@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no
X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1068116121 19128 129.241.83.82 (6 Nov 2003
 10:55:21 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:55:21 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0 (Linux)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2134
Date: 2003-11-06T10:55:21+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2003-11-04, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
> Preben Randhol wrote:
>> with Ada.Text_IO;       use Ada.Text_IO;
>
> The usual arguments of extra verbosity leading to clarity
> don't apply to with/use. The problem is that the things in
> the use clause don't necessarily have to be identical to
> the things in the with clause. That means every time you
> see a with/use set, you must verify that the packages in
> both are in fact identical, and if they are not, figure
> out why that is so.

I don't understand what you mean. Could you clarify this?

Do you mean that if you do:

with packA; use packA;
with packB; use packB;

and both packages has a procedure P you won't see in the code from which
package you called it? In that case you get:

   ambiguous expression (cannot resolve "p")
   possible interpretation at packb.ads:2
   possible interpretation at packa.ads:2
   compilation error

or do you mean that if packA had a child package B and you wrote :

   with packA; use packA
   use B;

then you get:

   "b" is undefined
   compilation error

So what do you relaly mean?

Preben
-- 
"Saving keystrokes is the job of the text editor, not the programming
 language."