Re: Ragged Array Proposal

[Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <01bf0919$67bbb350$022a6282@dieppe>,
  "Pascal Obry" <pascal_obry@csi.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Actually, that hides a bit of information. If I were writing it, it
> > would look more like:
> >
> > Fruits : constant array (Positive range <>) of
> > Ada.Strings.Unbounded.Unbounded_String :=
> >    (Ada.Strings.Unbounded.To_Unbounded_String("Apple"),
> >     Ada.Strings.Unbounded.To_Unbounded_String("Orange"),
> >     Ada.Strings.Unbounded.To_Unbounded_String("Pear"),
> >     ...);
> >
>
> Well Ada.Strings.Unbounded is a package that has been designed to
> be used with a use clause. Look above at all the redundant infos.

There is no "redundant info" above, unless you count the redundant info
that the designers of the unbounded string package purposely put in
there. :-)

But that's not the issue here. We are talking about presenting an
example comparing the syntactic weight of the current approach to that
of a proposed approach. Unless you include the "use
Ada.Strings.Unbounded;" statement in your example, then I argue that you
*must* write the example this way. As others have pointed out, you can
further shorten (and thus hide away) some of the syntax using renames
clauses and unary operators. The fact that you can use tricks to hide
some of the inherent ugliness in the above approach is beside the point.
The fact that folks would object to someone *not* using such tricks
practicly makes Nick's point for him.

--
T.E.D.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.