Re: Leading zeros with Int_IO.Put()? Or another package?

[rav@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (robin)]

	"Larry J. Elmore" <ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net> writes:

	>robin <rav@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> wrote in article
	><56trsm$f5a$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>...
	>> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
	>>>>From the Introduction section of ISO/IEC 8652:1995: 
	>>>>"The need for languages that promote reliability and simplify maintenance
	>>>>is well established. Hence emphasis was placed on program readability over
	>>>>ease of writing."
	>>>>Ada clearly failed in this aspect.
	>>>This is not clear at all.
	>> ---It is abundantly clear that it failed as to ease of writing.
	>Wait a minute, Robin. First you quote ISO/IEC 8652:1995

Larry, if you look back at the earlier posts, you'll find
that Ken Garlington quoted this, not me.

	>where it justifies
	>the decision to favor program readability (to promote reliability and
	>maintainability) over ease of writing and then state that Ada clearly
	>failed in this respect. Then you immediately turn around and state that Ada
	>failed in ease of writing.

That too.  If it's not easy to write, it's not going
to be easy to maintain either.

	>As you had just pointed out, it was never
	>designed with ease of writing as a major priority (nor should it have been,
	>since all major software is read many, many more times than it is written,
	>mostly by programmers other than the original designer). My point being
	>that it *did not* fail in that respect as you mistakenly claim. It exactly
	>met its design goals! 

	>> Various postings suggested that the conversion could be done in up to
	>> 82 lines of Ada code, whereas PL/I requires one simple line.

	>"Up to 82 lines of Ada"? Really, Robin... I've no doubt I could replicate
	>some aspect of Ada 95 that PL/1 lacks in "up to" any number of lines of
	>PL/1 I care to bloat it up to...

You've missed the point.  Those suggestions were from Ada
afficionados.  We assume that they are not going to "bloat
it up" to favor PL/I.  The posters were quite serious.

	>Larry J. Elmore