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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f891f,9d58048b8113c00f
X-Google-Attributes: gidf891f,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,9d58048b8113c00f
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,b20bb06b63f6e65
X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2e71cf22768a124d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 10cc59,9d58048b8113c00f
X-Google-Attributes: gid10cc59,public
From: rav@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU (++           robin)
Subject: Re: next "big" language?? (disagree)
Date: 1996/06/13
Message-ID: <4pnu4m$ga9@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 159916555
references: <4p1l65$35qi@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
 <4p60nk$imd@euas20.eua.ericsson.se> <4p8lmq$oq7@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <4pj8p7$h9r@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> <4plegb$ibp@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>
 <4pljv3$oqp@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU> <4pm33l$66q@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>
organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.pascal,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.ada
nntp-posting-user: rav
Date: 1996-06-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


	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.