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: 103376,1e3f2eac5c026e3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-19 17:44:06 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!newspeer1.nwr.nac.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: unknown <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Other Ada Standards (was Re: SIGada Conference)
Date: 19 Dec 2003 20:44:04 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccbrq4fel7.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B08@VS2.hdi.tvcabo>
 <mailman.127.1071622884.31149.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <DaudnfwlSK39VkKiRVn-sQ@comcast.com>
 <657ea3e3.0312172255.4869eae5@posting.google.com>
 <0cOdndZsZbH6W3yiRVn-gg@comcast.com> <wccvfoec77b.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <bebbba07.0312190051.5335ad9a@posting.google.com>
 <bebbba07.0312191639.339e261@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pip1-5.std.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1071884644 23264 192.74.137.185 (20 Dec 2003 01:44:04
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 01:44:04 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3598
Date: 2003-12-19T20:44:04-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes:

> Let me clarify this third alternative. I am suggesting that "use"
> should imply "with" -- unless the implied "with" would not compile, in
> which case the programmer would be responsible for putting in an
> appropriate "with".

OK, I think I get it.  Sorry for being obtuse earlier.

> It occurred to me that this may be equivalent to Mr. Duff's third
> alternative. If so, then please excuse my redundant redundancy.

I think you mean my *second* alternative (I gave only two).
Yes, I think we're talking about the same thing.
Perhaps I didn't explain it well.

It's the Department of Redundancy Department, I guess.  ;-)

- Bob