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 Subject: Re: some questions re. Ada/GNAT from a C++/GCC user Date: 1996/04/03 Message-ID: <316241DF.1B48@lfwc.lockheed.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 145627666 references: <3160E91E.1627@lfwc.lockheed.com> <316120DC.1F93@lfwc.lockheed.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: 1996-04-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff wrote: > > >What about a variable declaration that's not so plain? Would I still > >need a block statement in that case? > > I think you should be able to introduce a named block wherever you like. OK, but what is the impact to maintenance if Ada supports both "declaration on the fly" and "declaration within blocks"? If I introduce a "simple declaration" (whatever that means) without the need to explicitly highlight the declarative region, and then I start slowly increasing the complexity of that declarative region, do I get into trouble? My bottom line on Ada is that, for very simple programs, you type some stuff you don't need. Never mind "declare", there's all sort of keywords you could probably get rid off for trivial programs, and a smart compiler could still derive the meaning (a la PL/I, which can derive meaning from total nonsense, too!) However, those keywords do add value to the maintainer (my opinion). With current editor technology, and the not-at-all- uncommon phenomenon of tiny programs growing over time, I think it's a small price to pay. > > - Bob