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-Thread: a07f3367d7,46b760ffb623378c
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!eweka.nl!lightspeed.eweka.nl!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 21:26:00 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
Reply-To: rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Hiding the value of Constants
References: <30696d63-16e8-44e2-a4a5-db5095d7cfec@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com>
  <a6924870-4fe8-4e56-8a5b-23a663262778@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <Yo56m.436627$4m1.390223@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
In-Reply-To: <Yo56m.436627$4m1.390223@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4a58e74a$0$30233$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Jul 2009 21:26:03 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: bee28372.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=b:CEe1nJ2To[F<50eo:0knic==]BZ:afn4Fo<]lROoRa^YC2XCjHcbi>Bg_PWGoIhcA:ho7QcPOVcZNiA8\2DX;aNAKj12;JTZe
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6998
Date: 2009-07-11T21:26:03+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

anon wrote:
> Like I sometime say, this preson could be a student so, you show 
> him part of the answer but not al .

Yes. But in this case it seems fair to conclude,
after reading the OP's messages, that there is no basis
for an assumption like this. So this sounds kind of inadequate,
at best, pardon me.

> It works, and it will work if you 
> change the statement by using "constant" too.

No, it doesn't ...

>  But you may have to 
> add a couple of other statements,

... Yes...

> or not.

No...

Teaching by creative progression using intermittent reinforcement
is probably not a good excuse for the teacher missing the point?
In particular when the "pupil" demonstrates prior knowledge beyond
the above assumption ("my trusty Ada 95 Q&S guide...", he said, e.g.).
Please.