Re: Function definitions - with clarification

[montgrimpulo <aghte@hotlinemail.com>]

Direct reply to Simon Clubley:

I think you have to live with my attitude. Why should I always repeat myself
despite my problem description is now stable. Concerning the level of Ada knowledge
it is your level which governs the communication. An Example: If people
talk to a foreigner who apparently does not speak their mother tongue
very well, they tend to fall into something like "baby-talk". However this
is no help in making progress.

Concerning my questions: I expected something like: Under my assumptions
of ... my suggestion for a solution looks like ... .

Then I would be able to see how I was understood, and to learn what is possible
in Ada.
Btw. a prototype of a working system which does exactly what I want, was written
by me in Mathematica.
  
On Sunday, June 22, 2014 8:45:21 PM UTC+2, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2014-06-22, montgrimpulo <aghte@hotlinemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Direct reply to Shark8
> 
> >
> 
> > What is the point of saying "the above won't work" when it was
> 
> > obviously forgotten to indicate a type ? What is the point of changing my
> 
> > function F into a procedure F with an embedded procedure G ?
> 
> > This does not make sense at all.
> 
> >  What is then left as your contribution ?
> 
> >
> 
> 
> 
> You need to lose the attitude.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a number of people here who are trying to help you but
> 
> both your problem description and your level of Ada knowledge
> 
> are unclear.
> 
> 
> 
> Shark8's response was a good faith effort to correct you on Ada
> 
> syntax because it's unclear what your level of Ada knowledge is.
> 
> My questions, along with the questions others are asking you, are
> 
> good faith attempts to try and help you clarify the problem so
> 
> someone can offer more precise guidance.
> 
> 
> 
> Simon.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
> 
> Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world