Re: next "big" language?? (disagree)

[rav@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (++ robin)]

	ok@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:

	>rav@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (++           robin) writes:

	>If I were using PL/I, I would certainly write an Assert procedure and
	>use it.  As far as that is concerned, there is little to choose between
	>PL/I and Ada.  As far as I can see, the debate is about whether to use
	>a library function, or whether to use an explicit IF ... PUT ...
	>If that's not what it's about, I don't know _what_ rav's point is.

	>>---If we bring a preprocesor into it, we can do things like:

	>>   assert ("x > b", "the value of x is out of range" );

	>Yes, indeed.

	>>   The relevant macro would be something like:

	>>   assert: procedure (test, message);
	>>      answer ('if ' || test || ' then put (' || message || ')' );
	>>   end assert;

	>>That's 3 lines, I think.

	>Agreed, except that it doesn't do the same thing.

---same as what?  I never claimed it to be the same as anything.
Do read what's written -- ". . . we can do things like".

	> To do the same thing

---as what? (see above)

	>it would have to be something like

	>    % assert: %procedure (test, message);
	>	answer ('if ' || test || ' then do ' ||
	>                   'put (' || message || ');' ||
	>	           'signal whatever_you_want;' ||
	>                'end');
	>    %end assert;

---Well, definitely not!  Your example does NOT do the same thing
as mine.  You've included additional functionality that is
not in my example.

BTW, you left out the %activate statement.
  The SIGNAL statement is SIGNAL CONDITION (whatever_you_want);,
the PROCEDURE keyword does not have a % prefix,
and the DO statement requires a semicolon.

   The point of the example,
is that a PL/I programmer can do it in a few lines.