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-Thread: a07f3367d7,c689b55786a9f2bd
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!uucp.gnuu.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 15:37:55 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: for S'Image use Func??
References: <Xns9D7085FECB88EWarrensBlatherings@188.40.43.213>
 <op.vcaqajn0ule2fv@garhos> <Xns9D70A3756AAE0WarrensBlatherings@188.40.43.213>
 <wccmxwcu6kc.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <op.vcaxs1h4ule2fv@garhos>
 <wcceihou455.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <hs0jm5$vr4$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <wcchbmjlx6a.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
In-Reply-To: <wcchbmjlx6a.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4be417b4$0$6992$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 07 May 2010 15:37:56 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 726a1ce7.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=X?cDVdD@9_1n`gW2MTm]<34IUK<Cl32<14Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;0EgZNDi?V7:nc\616M64>:Lh>_cHTX3j=PoaZVJ675n;
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:11369
Date: 2010-05-07T15:37:56+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 07.05.10 14:21, Robert A Duff wrote:
> "J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> writes:

>>> I don't get it.  'Image isn't particularly helpful in producing
>>> columnar output.
>> 	
>> 'Image is just for quick, debug-like output.
> 
> So that's why it's broken?!
> 
> I'm imagining the Ada 83 design team saying, "This feature is
> only for quick, debug-like output, so let's make it do
> something annoying, so folks won't be able to use it
> for serious work, MWAHAHAH."  ;-)
> Sorry, I don't buy that -- I think they just made a mistake.

With 'Width given, and with 'Value reading "+123" like
" 123", WRT to what is there a mistake?
Would there be a discussion at all if "+123" had
been chosen as the result of 'Image (123)?


> I don't want nice formatted output.  I want the human-readable
> string image of the number, and for 123, that's "123",
> not " 123".

"123" to be the only representation ever wanted for 123 seems
like a far reaching assumption to me.  Others may want "+123" for
positive, "#123" for negative etc.   And "123" just *happens* to
be what one might want in this or that case.

I imagine that writing two statements for "just a number
and a string" makes some programmers feel annoyed because two
statements instead of one---though involving two functions---seems
verbose.

  Put (Num_Errors);
  Put_Line (" errors detected.");

"You never do such complicated things in Javascript's alert()"...
A way out:

  Put (Num_Errors); Put_Line (" errors detected.");