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: Paul Graham <pgraham@cadence.com>
Subject: Re: ada writing guide
Date: 2000/04/13
Message-ID: <38F63FF8.440443A9@cadence.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 610852005
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: Cadence Design Systems
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: 
> Notice the consistency in the assignment statement.  But is
> it more readable to write:
> 
>    i := foobar (f) + n(2);
> 
> This may give the reader a subtle indication that foobar is
> a function call while n is an array.

That would violate the principle of "referential transparency" :-)

I like to keep the lexical components of a name together, so I don't put
a space between a function/array name and the '('.  Use of spaces with
parentheses can lead to names like this:

    f (x).y

where the tokens "(x).y" appear to be a lexical unit by themselves,
unconnected to function (or array) f. 

Paul