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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,96ae138aab3beb03
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-02 08:06:40 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Localized Variable Declaration
Date: 2 Jun 2002 08:06:40 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0206020706.7f8c690c@posting.google.com>
References: <3CF77998.9040806@yahoo.com>
 <CXKJ8.716$i01.50879@news8-gui.server.ntli.net> <3CF77CDA.3090805@yahoo.com>
 <adLJ8.776$i01.53350@news8-gui.server.ntli.net> <3CF78D3D.3030400@yahoo.com>
 <SCMJ8.1075$i01.62205@news8-gui.server.ntli.net> <3CF79AAD.70501@yahoo.com>
 <8db3d6c8.0206011821.1e64ae72@posting.google.com>
 <3CF9EC9F.9020203@yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1023030400 12558 127.0.0.1 (2 Jun 2002 15:06:40
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jun 2002 15:06:40 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:25200
Date: 2002-06-02T15:06:40+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

David Rasmussen <pinkfloydhomer@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3CF9EC9F.9020203@yahoo.com>...
> I have already explained the benefits. I am not saying that this is 
> always better, and I know it is largely a matter of taste. But I can 
> assure you that there are real-life benefits in terms of ease of 
> maintenance and readability to doing this. I think it comes down to what 
> you're used to.


No, you have not explained why it is useful to have special
syntax to say that the scope is from here to the end, rather than
explicitly specifying the scope. I find that
in practice the C++ convention encourages sloppy programming in which
you get scopes unintentially
left open, for example, people write

        int t;
        t = x; x = y; y = t;

for an exchange instead of the far preferable

        {
           int t;
           t = x; x = y; y = t;
        }

why preferable? because in the first form, you do not
know if it is important that the value of y ends up in
t, so you have to remember that in case.

Yes, the first form saves the writer two keystrokes but
in Ada we don't care to save the writer effort :-)