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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c3a7c1845ec5caf9 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Mats Weber Subject: Re: Equality operator overloading in ADA 83 Date: 1997/04/29 Message-ID: <3365C805.73CF@elca-matrix.ch>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 238206663 References: <01bc4e9b$ac0e7fa0$72041dc2@lightning> <335F5971.6375@elca-matrix.ch> <01bc5244$315f1560$28f982c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> Organization: ELCA Matrix SA Reply-To: Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Nick Roberts wrote: > As to the property of mutual exclusion - this is the 'essence' of the case > statement - the implementation would probably have to test every choice at > run time in order to check that only one choice evaluates to True (and > raise an exception otherwise). [...] The language definition is not based on any concept like "the essence of the case statement". I don't see any problem with taking the first alternative that fits, like in a UNIX shell, where case does not follow the "essence" but is still very useful (OK, I know, we were talking programming languages :-). Anyway I think that checking the mutual exclusion of case alternatives at run time would be a waste of resources. Doing so at compile time in the static case is a very good feature, and that's why I think the static case should be kept as it is now.