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 15:10:18 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!green.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Other Ada Standards (was Re: SIGada Conference) Date: 19 Dec 2003 18:10:17 -0500 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B08@VS2.hdi.tvcabo> <657ea3e3.0312172255.4869eae5@posting.google.com> <0cOdndZsZbH6W3yiRVn-gg@comcast.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pip1-5.std.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1071875417 20283 192.74.137.185 (19 Dec 2003 23:10:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:10:17 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3590 Date: 2003-12-19T18:10:17-05:00 List-Id: "Robert I. Eachus" writes: > Robert A Duff wrote: > > > I don't agree. You could say that "use A.B.C;" in a context clause > > implies a subset of "with A;", "with A.B;", and "with A.B.C;" -- just > > the ones that happen to be library units. Or, you could *require* that > > they be library units, or be nested within already-mentioned library > > units, if you think that makes the code more readable. Either rule > > would work, and be easily implementable. > > The problem is upward compatibility, and some fun for implementors. The > requirement you mention would not be upwardly compatible. I don't see why not. It seems upward compatible to me, and pretty simple to implement. And at least for the second rule I suggested, I don't see how it could cause confusion for people reading the code. > However, did you follow the discussion of "use all A.B.C;"? No. >...That would > be like the with rule, meaning "use A; use A.B; use A.B.C;" I don't > know if I would use it much, but the parallel construction has a lot to > recommend it. Of course, if we add that use all, I'd love to also have > use all Ada.*; or more likely use all Ada.Text_IO.*. ;-) Shrug. This seems like a feature with a totally different purpose. - Bob