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: 2002-11-11 07:23:23 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 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: Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:22:21 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <3dcb8347$0$299$bed64819@news.gradwell.net> <3dcf44bb$0$300$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:30729 Date: 2002-11-11T15:22:21+00:00 List-Id: porton@ex-code.com (Victor Porton) writes: > "use all type" is namely against such the packages which contain > something other among operations on a type and also against such > packages which define several types. > > Consider also packages which define operations on class wide types. > "use"ing such a package may be dangerous as it may bring operations > on a not supposed concrete types. I don't understand the problem. > Well, which dangers "use all type" has? Personally I when deal with > a type almost always want all its primitive operations. Getting all > primitive operations of a type seems nearly safe. But when you deal with a type you also want various class-wide operations, and exceptions that are raised by primitive operations of the type, and generic units that are related to the type, and constants of the type. In particular, you want everything related to the type. In other words, you want everything declared in the same package as the type. Or, you want to use dot-selection notation. These possibilities already exist. > Also both standartizing and implementing "use all type" would be > *very* simple. Why not? There is no particular "danger" to "use all type". It's just not useful enough to consider adding to the language. All language changes, even fairly simple ones, have some cost: compilers must change, the RM needs wording, programmers have more features to learn about. - Bob