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: 2003-11-10 05:19:50 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!news.tdcnorge.no!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: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:19:49 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PVV
Message-ID: 
 <slrnbqv43l.hbs.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
References: <3FA2CDCB.500F4AF0@fakeaddress.nil>
 <slrnbqf1is.nb.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <1067951806.729117@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <slrnbqka4p.q3.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <1068123815.335508@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <Duvqb.21219$mB5.927593@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <3FAAB12E.C7593B45@fakeaddress.nil>
 <slrnbqmn3k.pk.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3FACCBFB.9D288CF2@fakeaddress.nil>
 <bebbba07.0311081140.e0e94e6@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbqug4j.ss.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3FAF8C99.5040201@noplace.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no
X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1068470389 4001 129.241.83.82 (10 Nov 2003
 13:19:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:19:49 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0 (Linux)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2294
Date: 2003-11-10T13:19:49+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2003-11-10, Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> wrote:
> Obviously, there are limited resources for modifying Ada compilers. 
> Obviously, there is a large corpus of existing Ada code that must not be 
> broken by language-rule changes. Just as obviously, there are 
> implications that are not intuitively obvious to the casual observer 
> when adding something like the infamous "+=" or now the "with and use". 
> Hence, it ought to be obvious that any proposed language change had 
> better have some significant food-value associated with it to make it 
> worth the research time into implications, the compiler changes 
> necessary and the possible risk to breaking any existing code. I don't 
> see any big advantages in what has been proposed here - not enough to 
> make it worth the effort.
>
> It would be more productive to figure out if there is some major 
> shortcoming in Ada or some major capabilities that Ada could use rather 
> than worry about relatively trivial syntax changes that don't address 
> some gaping hole in Ada's capabilities.

Exactly.

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