Re: Modular types inside records

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

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1812 bytes --]

In article <8FD6C49EFPablo@213.25.200.9>,
  niewiap@widzew.net (Pawe� Niewiadomski) wrote:
> I don't like explicit programming too much, anyways.  I guess
I am too much
> of a C++-type simplicity addict.


It does NOT make things simple for the maintainer to hide
things in non-obvious code. Yes, it may be simpler for you
to type, especially if you are a slow typist :-)

Since the wrap around is very crucial to the algorithm here,
you will have to document that clearly if the code does not
document it clearly.

I agree with Bob, the explicit mod or if makes the code
much clearer.

Actually "the I don't like explicit programming"

says a LOT!

In a way I would say the whole design of Ada is to make
code clear and explicit, so if indeed you prefer obscure
code, c++ may indeed have the edge on this particular metric!

P.S. For my taste, modular types with modulus other than a
power of 2 should never have gone into the language.
Historically this was partly an editing error. The designers
were trying to incorporate recommendations from the URG, and
they paid attention to a long design document that had been
submitted to the URG with essentially the Ada 95 model of
generalized modular types. What they missed is that the URG
had voted N-1 (the 1 being the person submitting the idea)
that this was overkill, and rejected the general proposal :-)

But by the time this error was noticed, there was a constituency
of general-modular-type fans, and there were other battles to
be fought. Actually in retrospect the battle should have been
fought for two reasons

1. There are some really horrible strange things, like the
meaning of not on weird modular types.

2. Discussing and getting the details right on these weird
things wasted time



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