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: 2003-12-18 10:27:21 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!washdc3-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!ngpeer.news.aol.com!feed2.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!newshosting.com!news-xfer2.atl.newshosting.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!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: 18 Dec 2003 13:27:20 -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 1071772040 25841 192.74.137.185 (18 Dec 2003 18:27:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 18:27:20 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3540 Date: 2003-12-18T13:27:20-05:00 List-Id: "Robert I. Eachus" writes: > As for "with and use" I did comment on that proposal here. Unfortunately > I probably spent more time explaining why "use implies with" can't work, > than discussing how to allow a "with and use" context clause. The > problem with "with implies use" has nothing to do with most cases where > users would want to use "with and use". The problem is that some use > clauses, even in context clauses, name units that cannot be withed. > Adding "with and use" to the language would not be a problem, changing > "use" to mean "with and use" is a non-starter. 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. Unfortunately, you can't just say that "use A.B.C;" is equivalent to "with A.B.C; use A.B.C;", because A.B.C might not be a library unit. Suppose A.B is a library package containing a nested package C. Then "with A.B; use A.B.C;" is currently legal. We can't say it's equivalent to "with A.B; with A.B.C; use A.B.C;", because that would be illegal, so the rule would be incompatible. - Bob