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,d1df6bc3799debed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" Subject: Re: Language Design Mistakes (was "not intended...") Date: 1997/05/13 Message-ID: <3378B0D7.17F9@this.message>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 241410939 Sender: usenet@most.fw.hac.com (News Administration) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: sparc02 References: <3.0.32.19970423164855.00746db8@mail.4dcomm.com> <5kl9qc$g4d@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <5kmek2$9re@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <33727FA5.5C7A@sprintmail.com> <33776792.2E44@this.message> Organization: Hughes Defense Communications Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > Wes said > > < array to a subprogram or entry, or assigning to or from the array > or a slice of it, then it will always be the only array of its type, > so a superfluous type declaration is merely clutter _hindering_ > source readability. (Some say the type name can be chosen for > documentation value, but I don't see why that can't all go into > the object name.)>> > > OK, but just make sure you know the rules. If you think this way, it is > all too easy to expect this to extend to a protected object that protects > an array, this is a very common syntactic error. Or that it extends to > a single field of a record that appears only once. I am aware of those rules, but even if I was not, the compiler would enforce them. Hence, there is still no need for a coding standard that people can use to "substitute for judgment." ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be w w g r o l at p s e u l t 0 1 dot f w dot h a c dot c o m SPAM should be sent to I.want.one@mailbombs.for.idiots.org If you don't want to pay $500 (see 47 USC 227), don't send it here. ----------------------------------------------------------------------