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: 103376,92c39a3be0a7f17d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-09 06:52:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!canoe.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr16.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3C8A2249.E7B0D7E5@flash.net> From: Gary Scott Reply-To: scottg@flash.net Organization: Home X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-DIAL (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Future with Ada References: <3wdH7.20135$xS6.32614@www.newsranger.com> <9tqete0gqc@drn.newsguy.com> <3C0924D6.2B5A3087@adaworks.com> <250220022121494455%thehouseofcards@remove.this.part.mac.com> <3C7B0B13.3080003@worldnet.att.net> <3C7D1C89.2000803@home.com> <3C7E7CAD.7070504@mail.com> <3C7FB9D2.D9C6E055@boeing.com> <3C81DF1F.9000503@mail.com> <3C83A112.6080302@mail.com> <3C84223C.A356F466@adaworks.com> <3C853A04.34826F39@despammed.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.48.222.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr16.news.prodigy.com 1015685499 ST000 64.48.222.18 (Sat, 09 Mar 2002 09:51:39 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 09:51:39 EST X-UserInfo1: TSU[@I_A\S@UQGT\ZCFJMFL@YB\@QAPDLXUNNHPIMASJETAANVW[AKWZE\]^XQWIGNE_[EBL@^_\^JOCQ^RSNVLGTFTKHTXHHP[NB\_C@\SD@EP_[KCXX__AGDDEKGFNB\ZOKLRNCY_CGG[RHT_UN@C_BSY\G__IJIX_PLSA[CCFAULEY\FL\VLGANTQQ]FN Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2002 14:51:39 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20974 Date: 2002-03-09T14:51:39+00:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > > Well the nice thing is that since it has no semantic meaning, it wouldn't > really impact the compiler in a difficult way if it were added. Since its > pretty much "noise", you would have 100% upward compatibility with existing > code and would just need some parser changes to detect the label & make sure > it matched at the end. > > Would it be attractive to be able to do something like: > > Outer_Check: if (Some_Boolean) then > Inner_Check: if (Some_Other_Boolean) then > Some_Statement ; > end if Inner_Check ; > end if Outer_Check ; Hmmm, looks exactly like Fortran 95...(except ; is optional) > > I suppose it would help when you have really long chunks of code inside the > ifs. > > MDC > -- > Marin David Condic > Senior Software Engineer > Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com > Enabling the digital revolution > e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com > Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ > > -- Gary Scott mailto:scottg@flash.net