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: 101deb,495b037244521cf3
X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,22b2c05a8088bbb2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Subject: Re: Leading zeros with Int_IO.Put()? Or another package?
Date: 1996/11/22
Message-ID: <572vu1$dl$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 198054932
references: <baldwinE0Eq2n.KLB@netcom.com>
 <327FB8A3.745B@itg-sepg.logicon.com> <55ubsh$lh0$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <dewar.847457421@merv> <56bi13$3pa$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <328A0DDD.94B@lmtas.lmco.com> <56rgou$r4k$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <56tjrh$4ak$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <56trsm$f5a$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
 <dewar.848496377@merv>
organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.pl1
nntp-posting-user: ok
Date: 1996-11-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

>Richard says that he concedes that it is too bad that the picture
>editing does not work for integers, but only for decimal. I can't
>see that as significant, it is trivial to extend the abstraction
>to cover the integer case if this is useful.

Did I say it was significant?  Did I say it was non-trivial?
Surely the point of my con version to Decimal_Integer was to *show*
that it is a trivial extension, and anyone even halfway familiar with
Ada would see how that idea could be used to build an appropriate
abstraction.

Let me state clearly:
    I do not see
	Put(Decimal_Integer(<<E>>), To_Picture("<<P>>"));
    as _significantly_ harder than
	PUT EDIT(<<E>>) (P'<<P>>');
    or whatever the PL/I code was.

    I regard the "magic string" in the first and the "magic picture" in
    the second as equally poor, and would prefer to use named pictures
    in either language.

    I am willing to concede that you then end up with an explicit conversion
    in the Ada version that is not needed in the PL/I version, but I note
    that roughly the same number of *tokens* is needed in the two languages,
    so even then a "PL/I is simpler" claim is harder to sustain.

-- 
Mixed Member Proportional---a *great* way to vote!
Richard A. O'Keefe; http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/%7Eok; RMIT Comp.Sci.