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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2e03bc978c29ea47
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1089ad,2e03bc978c29ea47
X-Google-Attributes: gid1089ad,public
From: pbgraham@engin.umich.edu (Paul B. Graham)
Subject: Re: ADA - VHDL
Date: 1996/07/10
Message-ID: <4s09jq$ddn@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 167571106
references: <31E2391F.A16BEBD@sh.bel.alcatel.be>
organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.vhdl
Date: 1996-07-10T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


> I also see no reason for some syntax differences ("to" in VHDL, ".." in ADA)

VHDL has ascending and descending ranges.  Ada has only ascending ranges.
I find it more convenient and understandable to write, e.g.,

	for i in 10 downto 1 loop	-- VHDL

than

	for i in reverse 1 .. 10 loop	-- Ada

Paul