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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f92fbb4a0420dd57
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lfwc.lockheed.com>
Subject: Re: some questions re. Ada/GNAT from a C++/GCC user
Date: 1996/04/02
Message-ID: <316120DC.1F93@lfwc.lockheed.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 145465504
references: <Dp1sMM.23q@world.std.com> <315FCD11.D7E@lfwc.lockheed.com>
 <Dp77v6.HCw@world.std.com> <3160E91E.1627@lfwc.lockheed.com>
 <Dp8vF9.MKt@world.std.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Date: 1996-04-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff wrote:
> 
> It doesn't seem to me that the declare block above needs a name -- it's
> not that big, and its function is intimately tied to the surrounding
> loop, rather than being stand-alone.

"Intimately tied to the surrounding loop" - that might be a useful fact
to communicate to the maintainer. How about a name for the loop, and
a name for the block that indicates _how_ it is tied to the loop?

> I have no problem with the exception keyword.  To me, an exception
> handler is much more of a "big deal" than a plain old variable
> declaration.

Well, since you wouldn't bite on "begin..."

What about a variable declaration that's not so plain? Would I still
need a block statement in that case?