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-Thread: 103376,802ee425bbc3eba3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.130.100 with SMTP id od4mr477104pbb.2.1335801431862;
        Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni116294pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Quantified expressions: no support for restriction predicates
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <19032073.760.1335801431421.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynlt11>
References: <22242340.4097.1335486547825.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbki8>
 <jnfavs$frf$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <796413.773.1335612600942.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbai3>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1335801431 26232 127.0.0.1 (30 Apr 2012 15:57:11
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:57:11 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <796413.773.1335612600942.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbai3>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-04-30T08:57:11-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Saturday, April 28, 2012 4:30:00 AM UTC-7, phil.c...@lineone.net wrote:
>=20
> Drat.  I knew about the parentheses.  (Personally, I would have liked par=
entheses to be required only when there is a syntactic ambiguity.  I suppos=
e that is so often, you may as well have them all the time.)

I have a vague memory of seeing code like this in a textbook, a long time a=
go.  I think it was in some version of Algol:

   if if if if A then B else C then D else E then F else G then
      ...

Although this isn't syntactically ambiguous, it is definitely migraine-indu=
cing.  Based on this, I'm glad they decided to require the parentheses.  Al=
though code like this shouldn't be written, at least a reader would have a =
fighting chance of understanding something like

   if (if (if (if A then B else C) then D else E) then F else G) then

                          -- Adam