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: 103376,92c39a3be0a7f17d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-17 05:19:38 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news2.kpn.net!news.kpn.net!nslave.kpnqwest.net!nloc.kpnqwest.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!nreader1.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Nick Williams" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: code partitioning (was: Future with Ada) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Organization: Ye 'Ol Disorganized NNTPCache groupie Message-ID: <1016371173.685267@ananke.eclipse.net.uk> Cache-Post-Path: ananke.eclipse.net.uk!unknown@213-152-38-147.dsl.eclipse.net.uk X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b5 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:19:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.104.129.36 X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@kpnqwest.net X-Trace: nreader1.kpnqwest.net 1016371177 212.104.129.36 (Sun, 17 Mar 2002 14:19:37 MET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 14:19:37 MET Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21363 Date: 2002-03-17T13:19:37+00:00 List-Id: Well, the reason for having labels on loops is fairly clear; to allow an exit statement to exit from a loop other than the innermost enclosing one. So there's obviously a concrete 'why' for loops - its not as clear for blocks (although I can see that it might be nice to have a construct which allows a new declarative region to be nameable). On the other hand, allowing this for if and case statements sounds a lot more like simple syntactic sugar. I don't really think it's sufficient to say 'language construct A has this additional syntax; so why not B?', rather the question should be 'why does language construct A have this additional syntax, and does language construct B benefit from it in a consistent way?'. Cheers, Nick. "Christoph Grein" wrote in message news:mailman.1016084642.17231.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org... > This is the only form I would like to see as a future syntax enhancement. We > already have this for loops and blocks, so why not for ifs and cases (and > selects). > > We do not need weird new syntax rules. >