From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 13 Dec 92 15:24:38 GMT
From: agate!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!sunic!se
unet!enea!sommar@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Erland Sommarskog)
Subject: Re: Suggestion for multivalue boolean case for 9X
Message-ID: <1992Dec13.152438.9929@enea.se>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Douglas N. Surber (dnsurber@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov) writes:
>    case (cond_1, cond_2, cond_3) is
>	when (true,  true,  true ) =>
>	    s_t_t_t;
>	when (true,  true,  false) =>
>	    s_t_t_f;
>....
>    end case;

Cobol's EVALUATE works something this. It was a couple a years ago
I played with it, but I recall that I had handy use of it. Particulary
as you could throw in ANY for a parameter to say that for the combination
of the other ones this one didn't care. (Or values that did care had been
covered by previous alternatives.) Unfortunate Cobol didn't allow you
to express non-contiguous values for the same alternative, which some-
what limited the usefulness.

But that was Cobol. Ada has better means as already have been shown by
other authors in this conferences.

>I don't know if it's too late to consider this for 9X,

Thankfully :-) it is far too late. But they scrapped my idea of chained
boolean expressions (e.g. a > b > c) too, so you are not alone.
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se