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=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,30df5a909ff1af4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Answering an Ada/COBOL Question
Date: 1999/11/14
Message-ID: <80leu1$k3l$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 548337388
References: <80hr16$5q2$1@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>
 <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911131710530.16406-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x27.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Nov 14 04:48:02 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-11-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article
<Pine.BSF.4.10.9911131710530.16406-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
> I don't want to rain on your parade, but how is this nicer
> than the pattern matching capability that all modern
> functional programming
> languages have?

Sure, these pattern matching facilities handle this capability
fine, though often not with such convenient syntax. But that's
besides the point given that none of these "modern functional
programming languages" are even vaguely suitable for fiscal
programming.


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