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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	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: 2002-03-06 00:33:27 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news-x2.support.nl!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail
From: dmitry@elros.cbb-automation.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Future with Ada
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 08:33:24 GMT
Message-ID: <3c85d276.83328312@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
References: <mailman.1005328653.20306.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <3wdH7.20135$xS6.32614@www.newsranger.com> <9tqete0gqc@drn.newsguy.com>
 <3C0924D6.2B5A3087@adaworks.com>
 <250220022121494455%thehouseofcards@remove.this.part.mac.com>
 <3C7B0B13.3080003@worldnet.att.net> <3C7D1C89.2000803@home.com>
 <mailman.1014918362.4599.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <3C7E7CAD.7070504@mail.com> <3C7FB9D2.D9C6E055@boeing.com>
 <3C81DF1F.9000503@mail.com> <a5tmpv$aek$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
 <3C83A112.6080302@mail.com> <3C84223C.A356F466@adaworks.com>
 <3C853A04.34826F39@despammed.com> <a63fda$er$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-alcarin.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.111)
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1015403604 12254421 212.79.194.111 (16 [77047])
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20849
Date: 2002-03-06T08:33:24+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:04:24 -0500, "Marin David Condic"
<dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote:

>To toss in yet another stink-bomb... :-)
>
>Why not allow the labeling of all structures that have an "end"? You can
>name a loop with a label and it helps find which "end" you mean if you've
>got nested loops. Same with declare blocks. Why not for "if" statements and
>"case" statements? Maybe also records - but the record already has a name
>and aren't nested so it would probably look inconsistent.

That's easy, just allow nested [anonymous] record types! (:-))

In any case I'd prefer:

type X is record ... end X; which would be perfectly consistent with
the syntax of protected and task types.

>It probably wouldn't amount to a major syntax change & might be mildly
>useful. But not having thought about it thoroughly, there may be issues.
>(What would you do if you had lots of "elsif" parts?) Anyway, its just an
>idea to think about....

Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov