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: 2003-11-12 04:41:15 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!feed.news.nacamar.de!uio.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: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:41:14 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PVV
Message-ID: 
 <slrnbr4aj9.6f3.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
References: <3FA2CDCB.500F4AF0@fakeaddress.nil>
 <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>
 <bebbba07.0311102320.7fba665a@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbr17j1.1qo.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <1068561335.260886@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <slrnbr1ujb.74s.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <bebbba07.0311111201.513c6ceb@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.241.83.82
X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1068640874 4995 129.241.83.82 (12 Nov 2003
 12:41:14 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:41:14 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0 (Linux)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2410
Date: 2003-11-12T12:41:14+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2003-11-11, Russ <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> And you *still* miss the point, even after Mr. Rosen spoonfeeds it to
> you. The point is *not* that redundant "with" and "use" clauses
> require extra typing. The point is that the poor *reader* of your code
> still has to *read* your cluttered code. 

And this is cluttered how?

> In your reply you did not even consider the *reader*. The *reader*
> doesn't give a hoot how many keystrokes you used to generate the code.
> All I can say is that I'm darn glad I'll never have to read your
> code.

WHAT!? 

Please explain to me how I don't care about the reader? What I was
saying is that you do not need to tell the reader in any additional way
which package that are used and which are not as the source code is
plain and clear. And please explain how you would write.

with Ada.Text_IO; use Ada.Text_IO;

in another way in Ada95.

How do you care about the reader when you are writing code that isn't
Ada95 and has to be run through a preprosessor to become Ada95 code?

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