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,FREEMAIL_FROM, 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: 2002-03-14 09:28:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hub1.nntpserver.com!hub1.meganetnews.com!newsfeed.sjc.globix.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!151.164.30.35!cyclone.swbell.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3C90DD8A.21D57CD2@despammed.com> From: Wes Groleau Reply-To: wesgroleau@despammed.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,es-MX,es,pt,fr-CA,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: labeling (was: partitioning (was: Future)) References: <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> <3C8D0D70.BB09F3DA@despammed.com> <3C8E3110.F36F2DC8@despammed.com> <3C8F575D.61EE90A9@despammed.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:27:38 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.168.144.162 X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com 1016126885 151.168.144.162 (Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:28:05 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:28:05 EST Organization: Raytheon Company Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21241 Date: 2002-03-14T12:27:38-05:00 List-Id: > > end case (Animal); > > What about: > > end case Animal; > > with the same rules as for ending procedure/function? That was somebody's earlier proposal. Someone had some reason for proposing adding the parens. I might have been one or both somebodies--I can't remember. I also don't remember the reason for using parentheses. (Yeah, I know the archives are available.) > > end if (Animal in Mammal | Animal in Reptile | not); > > This looks short and terse when there are not too much branches > (and is not necessary then, becaue it should be possible to > see all branches on one screen). When there will be more branches, > this may grow to some extraordinary size, affecting readibility > (in my opinion). If you put in everything allowed, yes. But I suggested that you don't have to put in all branches--in fact, you don't have to put in any. Besides, if you have a zillion eslifs you probably should have used a case statement. > > end P (Param : in Param_Type); > > > > -- Contents of parens have no effect on behavior > > -- of program. Constitutes compiler-checked comment, > > -- nothing more. Parens and contents optional. If present, > > -- contents must conform. > > Please no! Why put parameter list (or this proposal is for only > one-parameter?) to every element of comb? Why parameters near > exception handlig? And what, when there will be three or more > parameters? This won't be readable I think. Again, I said the parameter list is _optional_ but if used, must conform. Might help navigation when the subprogram identifier is overloaded, but is OPTIONAL. -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau