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: 103376,791530e499e6a7f9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: ada writing guide
Date: 2000/04/12
Message-ID: <8d2hig$7e6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 610315543
References: <8d1rso$bir$2@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au> <8d1vhj$hdr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x39.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Apr 12 19:08:16 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 2000-04-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8d1vhj$hdr$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
> You forgot the procedure's name. ;-)  I prefer:
>    procedure Foo
>       (D : in out Data;
>        C : in     Data
>       );

I find the use of IN redundant since it is the default, but
this is a matter of taste, as usual the critical thing is to
be consistent. I especially find the use of IN annoying in
functions.

I find the extra ); on its own line offensive and unnatural,
just as clear, and much easier on the eye to write

>    procedure Foo
>       (D : in out Data;
>        C : in     Data);

In GNAT we prefer to put things on a single line:

>    procedure Foo (D : in out Data; C : Data);

If they fit comfortably on one line, and use the form with
one line per parameter only if that is not the case.



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