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,c9d5fc258548b22a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.netcologne.de!newsfeed-fusi2.netcologne.de!news.buerger.net!uucp.gnuu.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2011 11:24:19 +0100
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110123 Thunderbird/3.1.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How do I write directly to a memory address?
References: 
 <67063a5b-f588-45ea-bf22-ca4ba0196ee6@l11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <31c357bd-c8dc-4583-a454-86d9c579e5f4@m13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <05a3673e-fb97-449c-94ed-1139eb085c32@x1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <4d4c232a$0$28967$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <4D4D6506.50909@obry.net>
 <4d50095f$0$22393$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <wcck4hb95jz.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <4d6d56c4$0$11509$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <4D6D6A90.2090108@obry.net>
 <4d6d6e60$0$11509$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net> <4D6E0BA5.9080301@obry.net>
 <ylllxzgp67a0.irlftl29r8i9.dlg@40tude.net> <ikl3jm$kli$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In-Reply-To: <ikl3jm$kli$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4d6e1ad4$0$6986$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 02 Mar 2011 11:24:20 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 426263f0.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=oBYlVRg5a63lIh70@<QIE74IUK<Cl32<14Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;4@W76Sief@=PCY\c7>ejV8D0cP2O3d086oEO0n7RC@m1
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:18689
Date: 2011-03-02T11:24:20+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 3/2/11 10:45 AM, Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:

> ----------------------------
> swith(clientID){
> case "eStore":
> callEStore();
> break;
> case "Retail":
> calRetail();
> break;
> case "CSR":
> callCSR();
> break;
> default:
> invalidClient();
> }
> -----------------------
>
> It seems like it might be a convenient feature?

The feature is present in Eiffel and C#.  The syntax looks nicely
clean, compared to repeated ifelse.  Is it healthy in practice?
If a convenience, and welcome as such, what kinds of programs
will the feature make more likely when in the hands of programmers?

With Java 5 enumeration types, you can already link strings and
methods to enumeration literals. And then still use enums, not
strings, for making distinctions.  If Java 5 were Ada, a Java
programmer could then switch on an enum and be sure that all cases
are covered specifically (no "others" or "default").  This cannot
be achieved with an untyped selection of strings (i.e. not some
type's set of strings), since no case coverage is possible.

You might also end up with two kinds of string literals in your
Java program, but not with two types, since there is only one
for string literals:

(1) Strings that can be "internationalized" and
(2) strings that can't because they control program logic in some
    switch statement.

Or can you switch natural languages while the Java program is
running and still assume that the switch {} will be working as
it should? Can the translation of the switch still be efficient?

Granted, similar issues can affect ifelse, e.g. when a
translation produces the same word W for two different words
W1 and W2 of the original language.

Conclusion:

controlling program flow by inspecting string values creates
maintenance effort and program translation issues caused by
the absence of distinguished types.