Re: Real syntax problems in Ada

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:14:15 -0700 (PDT), Adam Beneschan wrote:

> On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:13:02 AM UTC-7, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> What are real problems with Ada syntax as opposed to the imaginary ones
>> 
>> (e.g. Ada does not look like C, Forth, Elder Futhark, you name it)?
> 
> Ada does not look like Intercal ...

Not to forget J ...

> With respect to *syntax* problems (as opposed to new features), my own
> wish list would include allowing a generic formal part to be repeated on a
> generic package or procedure body.

Interesting. Yes. But then it should have been required rather than merely
allowed.

Speaking of generics, the formal parameter declarations could be more
regular:

generic
   type T ...;
   Object : T;

but

generic
   with procedure Foo ...;
   with package Bar ...;

From formal part one could expect following the pattern:

   <name> : <type> [:= <default>]

On the other hand, it is also clear why one would like to keep it visually
different from the signature of a subprogram.

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