Re: Type declarations in a subprogram

[cis.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!news .usafa.af.mil!kirk!cwarack@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Chris Warack <cis.ohio-state.e]

In article <C8q3Ep.JM2@irvine.com>, adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) writes:
|> In article <1993Jun16.164301@lglsun.epfl.ch> nebbe@lglsun.epfl.ch 
|> (Robb Nebbe) writes:
|> 
|> > Why would anyone want to declare a type in a subprogram? I have
|> > occaisionally done it in toy programs (a single procedure) but have
|> > never needed it in any "real" code that I have written. I was wondering
|> > if it supports some particular programming paradigm or if it was just
|> > included in the language for toy programs and because no one had a good
|> > reason to exclude it.
|> >
|> > If anyone has an example where a local type declaration makes the code
|> > clearer or more elegant I would be particularly interested in seeing it.
|> 
|> I do this fairly frequently in real code.  One example that I found in
|> my code is:
|> 
   [...] explanation and example deleted.

While Adam gives an example of why you might want this capability, I have
to ask why you wouldn't want it?  To prohibit it would just add additional
rules that apply to some declarative parts but not to others.  Why is this
a benefit?  It's simpler to define declarative parts the same.  Given that,
you could declare a type in the middle of a loop if you wanted to by using
a block statement.  I'll probably never do it, but it's nice to know that
the declarative part of a package spec, subprogram, and block statement
are the same.

-- 
Christopher A. Warack, Capt, USAF
Computer Science Department, US Air Force Academy

cwarack@kirk.usafa.af.mil                (719) 472-2401