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: 103376,9768c08202fdbbb1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-11-08 05:38:48 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.tufts.edu!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!world!news
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Subject: Re: Let's change semantics of "use type"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself)
Message-ID: <wcc65v8i3lh.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 13:38:18 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
References: <3dcb8347$0$299$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:30586
Date: 2002-11-08T13:38:18+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

porton@ex-code.com (Victor Porton) writes:

> I am suggesting (for the next Standard) to change the semantics of "use
> type" so that it would make visible not only primitive _operators_, but
> all primitive _operations_.

Why not just "use" the package in which the type is declared?
Why is this worth modifying the language?

> It seems (at the first glance) that changing Standard such the way would
> not make any correct program incorrect.

I think you mean, "...would not change the run-time semantics".
If so, I agree.

>... (However it would make some current
> programs not compilable. If this is too bad, it can be instead denoted as
> "use all type;" for using all operations, not only operators.)
> 
> The rationale is that this is a convenient way for dealing with a type 
> imported from a package without the need of many rename directives.  These
> directives may make a long list and are "dirty" for both writing and
> reading. (Reading this list one may not understand for exactly what is
> present an item of the list and so not know (without experiment with a
> compiler) whether this item can be removed without breaking the program.
> So in certain sense the current Ada is not perfectly readable.) With "use
> all type" programmers will less tend to write multi-level designators
> which are both unreadable (especially when there are several such
> designators in an expression) and error-prone as one may forget y in
> x.y.z (mistakedly writing x.z) and get wrong behavior of the program.

Agreed: long boring sequences of code are evil.

- Bob