Re: Let's change semantics of "use type"

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

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

> In article <wcc65v8i3lh.fsf@shell01.theworld.com>,
> 	Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:
> > 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?
> 
> There are many writings on why "use" package is an evil:
> It may expose something unintentionally especially when
> switching to a new version of a package. This unintentionally
> used identifier may cause program behavior different from
> intended by a not enough careful programmer (everybody).
> 
> I retell that I also suggested an alternate syntax "use all type".

My point was that changing the syntax from "use P;" to "use all P.T;"
won't eliminate the supposed "dangers" of use clauses.  Most packages
contain a type, plus operations on the type, so the two syntaxes mean
*almost* the same thing, in practice.

- Bob