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
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,f92fbb4a0420dd57
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f92fbb4a0420dd57
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: some questions re. Ada/GNAT from a C++/GCC user
Date: 1996/03/30
Message-ID: <Dp3G4u.KEA@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 145037232
references: <wnewmanDoxrCp.DKv@netcom.com>
 <4je9ju$174r@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
 <ROGOFF.96Mar28134118@sccm.Stanford.EDU> <4jhe1v$m0g@dayuc.dayton.saic.com>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++
Date: 1996-03-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <4jhe1v$m0g@dayuc.dayton.saic.com>,
John G. Volan  <John_Volan@ccmail.dayton.saic.com> wrote:
>A C programmer would complain about having to introduce an extra
>begin/end block in order to introduce variables.  Isn't the scope
>of a variable well-defined in C, even without this extra baggage?
>It just extends from the declaration to the end of whatever block
>you're already in.

Well, at least one Ada programmer (namely, me) would agree with the C
programmer in this case.

>An Ada programmer would counter that, in Ada, some variables might be
>instances of _task_ types. ...

Sorry to keep disagreeing with you, John, but this seems like the tail
wagging the dog.  If the reason I'm required to add 3 extra junk lines
of code, just to declare a simple variable, is because of tasks, then
that's just poor language design.  If you need a place to activate the
tasks, fine, put in an "Activate_Tasks_Here" statement.  Don't
complicate the job for some poor guy who has no tasks, and just wants to
declare an Integer or String variable.

- Bob