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: 103376,c733905936c6b6b0
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.202.168 with SMTP id kj8mr11936848pbc.1.1334637818483;
        Mon, 16 Apr 2012 21:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni65299pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: [OT] interesting reason why a language is considered good
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:43:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CBB2B388.139F0%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
References: <jme7r1$eo7$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <8603135.951.1334573001928.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbdy9>
 <4f8c06f5$0$7617$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <14veb9cpamoda.ck9fbsd5m9m$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4f8c3431$0$7627$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <szik5e8e6n4m$.dgyqh41b6k6b$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4f8c52b2$0$7627$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <9s7d2eufbh6f$.1ivcyxfztaq42$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4f8c93a0$0$6638$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <jmiotp$3gc$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: individual.net mFg1qLHbdnWnQYI5ITpV6QWj/gb47SEQsg8zU90HFOWjg9fLfk
Cancel-Lock: sha1:T1bWD1n6JRhlmHyoU5+FufxmYSc=
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.32.0.111121
Thread-Topic: [OT] interesting reason why a language is considered good
Thread-Index: Ac0cVKaCc7xlxGrOokKvcbHZdnPccA==
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-04-17T05:43:36+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 17/04/2012 04:43, in article jmiotp$3gc$1@munin.nbi.dk, "Randy Brukardt"
<randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote:


> This is irrelevant, because Ada requires the names of the parameters to be
> those used in *calls*. The names used in the body probably ought to be
> nouns, but in calls, verbs or adjectives often work better:
> 
>     Leave (When => Now);
> 
> It is a smallish fault of Ada, in fact, because there almost never are names
> that work well both in calls and in the body. The solution is to define the
> parameter names as needed for readability in calls, and then (if those names
> are problematic in the body), rename them for use in the body:
> 
>      Exit_Time : Time renames When;

System Control Language (SCL), the "JCL" for ICL's VME 2900 OS allowed a
'keyword' to be specified for each formal parameter, alongside its
identifier in the formal parameter list.

The keyword was used in calls and the identifier in the body.  If no keyword
was given explicitly, the identifier was used by default.

This worked well, in my view.

-- 
Bill Findlay
with blueyonder.co.uk;
use  surname & forename;