Re: *\\~record depth~//*

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <3827113A.DCFE454A@callnetuk.com>,
  Nick Roberts <nickroberts@callnetuk.com> wrote:

<<very nice discussion of why this might be useful snipped>>

Note that even if it were not useful, it is obviously well
defined, and the semantics are trouble free. The Ada design
is not in the business of forbidding things for no good reason,
and "we can't think of a useful use" is NOT a good reason
for forbidding things.

There are things that are forbidden arbitrarily, but there is
a good reason for the rule. For example, it is an angularity
in the language that out parameters are not allowed in
procedures, but this restriction is there very deliberately,
because lots of people think it is an important methodological
restriction (as everyone knows, I strongly disagree with this
particular viewpoint, and this point continues to be argued).

But if anyone tried to argue for introducing an arbitrary
restriction that made the language description more complex
and the best argument they could come up with was "this use
of this particular feature doesn't seem to be useful, so let's
not allow it", they would not get very far!

Indeed, it is often the case that things turn out to be useful
which were not specifically understood as useful in advance.
It takes time to learn all the interesting ways that the
features of a language like Ada can work together.


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