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 10.180.88.195 with SMTP id bi3mr2487943wib.3.1346167416900; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:23:36 -0700 (PDT) Path: q11ni360130983wiw.1!nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Real syntax problems in Ada Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:23:42 +0200 Organization: cbb software GmbH Message-ID: <1xfc5a70g33xq.6o52bn9evjls$.dlg@40tude.net> References: <1p5r39cusgc1n$.18nj9sytckk6$.dlg@40tude.net> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.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: 2012-08-28T17:23:42+02:00 List-Id: On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:27:12 +0400, Vasiliy Molostov wrote: >> 5. "X : T := E", but "procedure X is "; > > Unclear what it is, but should we use the same for T, or how to express T > in this case? There is an asymmetry in how objects of anonymous types are declared and the subprograms are. E.g. X : array (1..3) of Integer := (others => 0); a symmetric declaration of a procedure would be: X : procedure := begin ... end X; Not that I advocate for this particular syntax. I only note difference. >> 6. Lack of per point notation for nD array aggregates, e.g. >> Diag : Matrix := ((1,1)=>1.0, (2,2)=>1.0, (3,3)=>1.0, others => 0.0); > > Unclear, what is per point. Using flat nD index additionally to the arrays of arrays of arrays ... notation like: Diag : Matrix := ( 1 => (1 => 1.0, others => 0.0), 2 => (2 => 1.0, others => 0.0), 3 => (3 => 1.0, others => 0.0)); >> 8. The order in which the keywords "new", "interface", "limited", >> "abstract", "tagged", "private" may appear should be free. > > Unclear. Example? type T is abstract tagged limited null record; -- Only so type T is abstract limited tagged null record; -- Illegal type T is limited tagged abstract null record; -- Illegal ... I bet very few would remember the proper order if asked unprepared. Luckily GNAT would advise how to reorder the keywords in its error message. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de