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: 103376,791530e499e6a7f9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Samuel T. Harris" <samuel_t_harris@Raytheon.com>
Subject: Re: ada writing guide
Date: 2000/04/13
Message-ID: <38F63461.91EC3625@Raytheon.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 610833113
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <8d1rso$bir$2@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au> <8d1vhj$hdr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <8d2hig$7e6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38F5DF8C.1A01E5A4@utech.net>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Raytheon Aerospace Engineering Services
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-04-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Jeffrey D. Cherry" wrote:
> 
> Robert Dewar wrote:
> >
> > I find the extra ); on its own line offensive and unnatural,
> > just as clear, and much easier on the eye to write
> >
> > >    procedure Foo
> > >       (D : in out Data;
> > >        C : in     Data);
> >
> > In GNAT we prefer to put things on a single line:
> >
> > >    procedure Foo (D : in out Data; C : Data);
> >
> > If they fit comfortably on one line, and use the form with
> > one line per parameter only if that is not the case.
> 
> I quite agree that if a complete declaration can appear on one
> line, it should not be arbitrarily broken up into two or more
> lines.  I also agree with the ");" looking silly when it's
> on a line by itself.  The part about "in" mode for parameters
> (not quoted above, but in the original post) I would also
> agree with, especially with function parameters.  Now
> here is where I stray ... just a bit.
> 
> I like the following form for a subprogram declaration:
> 
>     procedure Foo(
>        D : in out Data;
>        C : in     Data);
> 

I prefer ...

procedure foo
 (
  d : in out data; -- some meaningful comment about d.
  c : in     data  -- some meaningful comment about c.
 );

procedure foo
 (
  d : in out data;
  c : in     data
 )
is
  [declarations]
begin
  [statements]
end;

I find the extra white space around the parameter group
natural and appealing.

The comments about d and c in the subprogram specification
can naturally be about the contact (a la Eiffle) assumptions.

The comments about d and c in the subprogram body
can be about internal assumptions or design details.

-- 
Samuel T. Harris, Principal Engineer
Raytheon, Aerospace Engineering Services
"If you can make it, We can fake it!"