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: 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: 1996/04/02
Message-ID: <Dp93wB.EEG@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 145478648
references: <Dp1sMM.23q@world.std.com> <3160E91E.1627@lfwc.lockheed.com>
 <Dp8vF9.MKt@world.std.com> <316120DC.1F93@lfwc.lockheed.com>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <316120DC.1F93@lfwc.lockheed.com>,
Ken Garlington  <garlingtonke@lfwc.lockheed.com> wrote:
>"Intimately tied to the surrounding loop" - that might be a useful fact
>to communicate to the maintainer. How about a name for the loop, and
>a name for the block that indicates _how_ it is tied to the loop?

No need to name the loop -- that's pretty much the only thing in that
function, so the function name serves the purpose.  Name for the loop
body?  Maybe, but I don't see how the fact that I *happened* to want a
very-local variable has anything to do with it.

>Well, since you wouldn't bite on "begin..."

:-)

>What about a variable declaration that's not so plain? Would I still
>need a block statement in that case?

I think you should be able to introduce a named block wherever you like.

- Bob