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: 103376,a3ca574fc2007430 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 115aec,f41f1f25333fa601 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Subject: Re: Ada and Automotive Industry Date: 1996/11/12 Message-ID: <5692dv$2t5$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 195982952 references: <3280DA96.15FB@hso.link.com> <1996Nov6.210957.3070@ole.cdac.com> <1996Nov8.183051.21638@ole.cdac.com> organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.realtime nntp-posting-user: ok Date: 1996-11-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: james@cdac.com (James Thiele) writes: >I prefer a language where if I write a statement that looks like >it should be legal it is. Even PASCAL accepts for i:= 1- to 1 do ... If you ever find such a language, let me know. I've studied a couple of hundred programming languages, from Ada to Zed, and I've yet to find one that satisfies your rule. For what it's worth, no version of Pascal accepts "for i:= 1- to 1 do"; Pascal _does_ accept "for i := -1 to 1 do" because it has only one integral type; and it looks to _me_ as though "for i = -1 to 1 do" and "for i := -1 .. 1 do" "should be legal", but they aren't. -- Mixed Member Proportional---a *great* way to vote! Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.