Re: Why Ada is not the Commercial Lang of Choice

[Roy Grimm <ragrimm@collins.rockwell.com>]

Don Harrison wrote:
> 
> Dale Stanbrough wrote:
> 
> :We shouldn't of course forget the option of using underscores in numeric
> :literals, which to my continual amazement, no other language that i know of
> :has!
> 
> Well, you can stop being amazed because Eiffel allows them. :)

Will wonders never cease? :P

> However, they differ in that digits must be grouped in threes. Grouping in
> threes is an arbitrary choice and, IMO, too restrictive. For example, it makes
> no sense for base 2 literals. OTOH, I think Ada's free placement is too liberal
> because it allows different groupings within the same literal.
> 
> Something in between is probably optimal - like allowing any grouping but with
> the restriction that it must be consistent within a literal.

I like having the freedom to place underscores where I need them.  In
some of the work I do, I have to break up and assemble 32 bit words
composed of varying segments.  I like having the ability to use a mask
that looks like this:

2#0_00_00000_1111111111111111_00000000#

On the other hand, the same incoming bus data can be masked as so:

2#0_00_1111111_1111111_1111111_00000000#

In this case, having the flexibility is really nice.  I guess it really
has to do with the context of the job you're doing.

-- 
Voicing my own opinion, not speaking as a company representative.

Roy A. Grimm
Rockwell Collins Avionics
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
ragrimm@cca.rockwell.no.spam.com
    (remove the no.spam. to get my real address)