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: 103376,429176cb92b1b825
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!2a02:590:1:1::196.MISMATCH!news.teledata-fn.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 22:39:55 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: AWS Coding Styles (and about boring plain-linear text files in
 the end)
References: <op.vpfsjkfdule2fv@garhos>
	<24418fa4-8843-4fe6-8c2f-026ea6009b68@g26g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
 <87lj2ido9j.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <4D35F6C8.2060100@obry.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D35F6C8.2060100@obry.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4d3608ab$0$7664$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jan 2011 22:39:55 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 8009a8c8.newsspool1.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=G86D``dF`eom7>ihJR;B_cic==]BZ:afn4Fo<]lROoRa<`=YMgDjhgbDb>jfmWVF0knc\616M64>jLh>_cHTX3jmc=T19:o[g2`
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:17501
Date: 2011-01-18T22:39:55+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 18.01.11 21:23, Pascal Obry wrote:
> 
> Florian,
> 
>> The problem is that the rule is self-contradictory.  I think it should
>> say, "should not specifically mention", i.e., the opposite of what you
>> suggested.
> 
> No, it is definitely "should specifically mention". We are talking about
> the formal name here. Please reread my response to Yannick about this one.
> 

The trouble here is maybe that the guidelines say

1) Mention the formal argument names!

2) Do not depend on the names of things!

I first thought of the distinction between "to mention" and
"to use" and how it is usually found confusing and thus
frequently accompanied by a definition.  Which one is appropriate here?

Second, the style rule requires thinking about an apparent
contradiction, created by a certain reading of (2) in the
presence of (1). The reader assigns possibly unintended,
yet plausible, meaning to the words "depend" and "names",
and concludes:

 "How is one to mention formal argument names in a comment
but such that one must not depend on names in the comment?"