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: 103376,7fcf9180e7ba7ab1 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.158.31.10.MISMATCH!newsfeed-0.progon.net!progon.net!newsfeed.ision.net!newsfeed2.easynews.net!ision!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 13:32:07 +0200 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: A suggestion for resource management References: <8762z4gcoi.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <8darikF1b0U1@mid.individual.net> <87eidr3cje.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> In-Reply-To: <87eidr3cje.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <4c710ab7$0$6882$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Aug 2010 13:32:07 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: ddd5d09f.newsspool2.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=IE5\5ahR2Tgg`45cDR8l?oA9EHlD;3Ycb4Fo<]lROoRa8kFW@dPCY\c7>ejVh[>g@JBWoL>b`G3Z]j On 8/21/10 11:01 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Niklas Holsti: >> [One may use blocks, this is Ada.] >> >> I find that form clear and brief enough, although I admit that >> nesting depth may become awkwardly large (the remedy is to split the >> procedure). > > No one will write such code unless forced to do so by some static > analysis tool. It's rather messy. (Even though there is some evidence that block nesting and disciplined manual cleanup has been considered messy here and there, backing this claim with data will help. Recent Python development may be a source of evidence, e.g. counting cleanup Bugs in old Python from a big installation such as Google App Engine, versus new Python and whatever programs are available for statistical analysis.) Wouldn't a new type based hook into the object life cycle fit the language better? At least if you use types to encapsulate objects that belong together. Wouldn't have compatibility problems, either, would it? Scope(whatever) ...; looks like a solution typical of {} languages: compare its "flexibility" with the "flexibility" of goto in C and Ada, respectively. I find it too compiler-writer-oriented, and somewhat ad hoc in use. How can it be bridled? Just my 2c. Georg