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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2746dae4f161c04e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-24 12:05:57 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!lsanca1-snf1!news.gtei.net!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!news.mindspring.net!not-for-mail
From: Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Understanding Booleans
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 12:09:42 -0800
Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering
Message-ID: <3BFFFE86.7D76A365@adaworks.com>
References: <20011121.053507.496987743.3460@web.de>
 <slrn9vmtc6.tb.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3BFBDF14.4B83708B@boeing.com>
Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9e.fc.cd.e8
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Server-Date: 24 Nov 2001 20:05:35 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16940
Date: 2001-11-24T20:05:35+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeffrey Carter wrote:

> Preben Randhol wrote:
> >
> >       if Get_Active (Object) = True then
>
> Am I the only one who finds this objectionable? It ends up meaning the
> same thing as
>
> if Get_Active (Object) then

As an old Fortranner, I find nothing objectionable in the first form.
Moreover,
I suspect some other old Fortranners might find it more readable.   In any
case,
it seems not so important that anyone would find it "objectionable."
Rather,
it is likely that whatever provides the greatest clarity for those who
will read
the code is preferred.   The second form may not always be clear to all
readers.
The first form is probably going to be clear to everyone, even those who
are
deeply offended by its lack of economy.

Dr. Dewar has often noted the importance of readability over writeability.
If the
first form is more readable to more people, and produces no additional
overhead
in the excecutable, I think it is perfectly acceptable.

Richard Riehle