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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,d00514eb0749375b
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "(see below)" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: initialize an array (1-D) at elaboration using an expression
 based on the index?
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 19:09:55 +0100
Message-ID: <C8F36F83.1536B0%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
References: <i9amkr$goj$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1f6bad81-e3d2-428b-a1a0-45acc7f96f68@m7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <9df4e5eb-fba7-4e8c-ba44-cd1ad4081d3b@26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
 <ade14be1-de0a-4dfa-a2a5-6009fa6da139@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <985a178c-8dfc-48af-9871-76a64750a571@l14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <2penc6lgsop1583vmg9i0m429ri4ajaf9n@4ax.com>
 <d779c161-3199-45ca-87ae-d0501c74e219@26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net XYUr4egg99/7ezsrER5vEwAVk/zgLyMMkhTGb5WnfyR0TnUbjb
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zXTDH8pGxjnO3zladVSPgmShhr8=
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.23.0.091001
Thread-Topic: initialize an array (1-D) at elaboration using an expression
 based on the index?
Thread-Index: Act5LzPRdrScaPTpjkKVioiHIM7PCw==
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16033
Date: 2010-10-31T19:09:55+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 31/10/2010 20:00, in article
d779c161-3199-45ca-87ae-d0501c74e219@26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com, "Shark8"
<onewingedshark@gmail.com> wrote:

>> ... having been raised on Algol-W I am delighted to see them come back.
>> 
>> Is it their unfamiliarity that disturbs you?
> 
> No, not so much.
> I don't see how they are [strictly-speaking] necessary, given that we
> have declare-blocks (which can be arbitrarily-nested).

"Necessary" is not a valid criterion for anything more human-oriented than a
Turing machine. Remember that Ada views programming, above all, as a human
activity.

> Granted, they would make it a lot less verbose in many cases. {BTW, if
> we're going to allow if/then statements inside expressions &
> assignments/initializations then what's keeping us from using case-
> statements too?}

Absolutely nothing.
Algol W and Ada 2012 (I'm delighted to see) have both.

-- 
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk