Re: Ada case-statement

[Jacob Sparre Andersen <jacob@jacob-sparre.dk>]

Randy Brukardt wrote:

> Personally, I don't like declarations without explicit subtypes, as
> the subtype of an object is critical for understanding the semantics.
> Not having the subtype in the source makes it much harder to
> understand the semantics.

Agreed.

> We have been considering making the subtype name in an object renames
> optional -- the subtype is a lie anyway (since it is ignored
> semantically), and other important properties of the renamed object
> like "constant" are omitted. That's about as far as I will go for
> typeless declarations (and perhaps even that is too far).

Wouldn't it be more informative for the reader, if one was forced to use
the name of the first subtype in object renames?  (Yes.  I know.  Not
backwards compatible.)

Removing the type information completely would in my view make the
source text even harder to read.  But maybe only for people who
understand (some of) the intricacies of object renames.

Greetings,

Jacob
-- 
"There are two ways of constructing a software design. One way is to
 make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies. And the
 other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
 deficiencies."                                    -- C. A. R. Hoare