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: 103376,6aa1ec264ce25142
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.180.105.2 with SMTP id gi2mr2526682wib.4.1346171967639;
        Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 e9ni59248412wia.0!nntp.google.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!195.71.90.67.MISMATCH!news.unit0.net!feeder.erje.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Real syntax problems in Ada
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:39:25 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <1w3xr2kbz8a19$.wpfoz4p1j1sb.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <1p5r39cusgc1n$.18nj9sytckk6$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <289703e7-1fba-41ce-b781-9e58ff2ec7df@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9A8bJrx4NhDLcSmbrb6AdA.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-08-28T18:39:25+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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