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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c733905936c6b6b0
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.233.69 with SMTP id tu5mr13796112pbc.6.1334679310040;
        Tue, 17 Apr 2012 09:15:10 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni67143pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: [OT] interesting reason why a language is considered good
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 18:15:04 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <146segtlt6uuq$.uhujfbcu0yuf.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <jme7r1$eo7$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <8603135.951.1334573001928.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbdy9>
 <4f8c06f5$0$7617$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <14veb9cpamoda.ck9fbsd5m9m$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4f8c3431$0$7627$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <szik5e8e6n4m$.dgyqh41b6k6b$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4f8c52b2$0$7627$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <9s7d2eufbh6f$.1ivcyxfztaq42$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4f8c93a0$0$6638$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <jmiotp$3gc$1@munin.nbi.dk> <m27gxel5q0.fsf@pushface.org>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: Gbl624r6iuNIccy3ASy5ag.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-04-17T18:15:04+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:48:23 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:

> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
> 
>> Unfortunately, this solution makes insanely wordy calls:
>>
>>     Leave (Scheduled_Departure => Now);
>>
>> In many cases, the parameter names overwhelm the actual values. The
>> "solution" usually used is to omit them from the calls altogether,
>> reducing readability and understandability.
> 
> Your "insanely wordy" is my "perfectly natural"!
> 
>    procedure Serve (Using_Port : GNAT.Sockets.Port_Type;
>                     At_Priority : System.Priority := System.Default_Priority;
>                     With_Stack : Positive := 20_000;
>                     Logging_Via : Logger := null;
>                     Tracing : Boolean := False);
> 
> called as
> 
>    Serve (Using_Port => 8080,
>           With_Stack => 40_000,
>           Tracing => Verbose);
> 
> Now that I look at them, both would probably be improved with a bit of
> alignment:
> 
>    Serve (Using_Port => 8080,
>           With_Stack => 40_000,
>           Tracing    => Verbose);

Why not "With_Tracing" then? In "Using_Port" "Using" is just noise, as well
as "With" in "With_Stack."

My take would be:

   Serve (Port => 8080, Max_Stack_Depth => 40_000, Tracing_Level =>
Verbose);

P.S. I would never use an abstraction with side-effects. I.e. Serve would
become an operation of some explicit Connection, Worker etc object keeping
the state.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de