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,a9bab26b6fe54a36
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.utanet.at!newsfeed01.chello.at!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Pondering what rationale behind record type
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: 
 <e49186b6-9c80-4788-a64f-dd9aba151f02@u26g2000vby.googlegroups.com>
 <90148303-4dc4-4c05-882f-88dd69a95494@z13g2000prk.googlegroups.com>
 <92quueFnsfU1@mid.individual.net> <vpiu4ewfl8vf.1np1y27so5jtb.dlg@40tude.net>
 <defadb27-a92e-43a4-ae34-b399ee84e266@d28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
 <4dc864b9$0$6890$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <srmjrvuvt6co.1salemwyup26.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4dc90f7a$0$7659$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <11dlfbvj00hru$.7zkw6im0a7gj$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4dc92d14$0$6776$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 14:50:50 +0200
Message-ID: <14o3gst7h97px$.g6k9bn5b3p4q$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 May 2011 14:50:50 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 313f2b31.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=9LM^Rh\CQYWU6b:FjPaGjQMcF=Q^Z^V3X4Fo<]lROoRQ8kF<OcfhCO[a]LNHib7JT[[6LHn;2LCV^7enW;^6ZC`T\`mfM[68DCSMJbm5BNCV3X
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:20187
Date: 2011-05-10T14:50:50+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 10 May 2011 14:18:28 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 10.05.11 14:08, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>>> Anything wrong with (i.e. makes you shudder)
>>>
>>>    Label_A: loop
>>>      ...
>>>    end loop Label_A;
>>>
>>> ?
>> 
>> loop A do
>>    ...
>> end A;
> 
> Consequently,
> 
> if ... then A do
>    ...
> else
>    ...
> end A;
> 
> I guess?

What is the reason to name statements? But if you wanted to, it would be

if A do <condition> then
   ...
else
   ...
end A;

>>>    type Get_Token is function (File : File_Type) return
>>>        ((Matched : Boolean; Length : Positive) record
>>>            case Matched is
>>>              when True => Token : String (1..Length);
>>>              when False => null;
>>>            end case;
>>>         end record)
>>>    end Get_Token;
>> 
>> No, Get_Token would be a function-type.
> 
> Yes. It was suggested that the meat part of type declarations
> should end in "end [X]", not "end keyword", so that
> 
>> E.g.
> 
>     type Func is
>        function (X : Float) return Float;
>     end Func;

No, because here there is no left bracket that follows "is". Compare

   type String is array (...) of ...;

The type declaration syntax is:

   type <name> is <definition>;

<definition> can be:

1. plain, e.g. private; range ...; delta ...; array; access ...; mod ...

2. nested, like task, record, protected object. Their declarations are
unfortunately irregular. They should have been

   type Worker is task ... end Worker;
   type Mutex is protected ... end Mutex;
   type Data is record ... end Data;

Of course one could deploy the alternative schema:

   <class-name> type <name> is <definition>; 

E.g.

   task type A is ... end A;
   record type B is ... end B;
   array type String is (Positive range <>) of Character;
   range type Integer is -2**31-1..2**31-1;

But mixing them was a bad idea.

P.S. task and protected should have been record types with entries being
primitive operations.

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