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: 2002-11-09 07:21:03 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!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: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 15:20:28 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <3dcb8347$0$299$bed64819@news.gradwell.net> <3dcc7efd$0$308$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:30648 Date: 2002-11-09T15:20:28+00:00 List-Id: porton@ex-code.com (Victor Porton) writes: > In article , > Robert A Duff 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