From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 1 Jul 93 15:39:36 GMT
From: eachus@mitre-bedford.arpa  (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Ada Operators in 9x
Message-ID: <EACHUS.93Jul1103936@spectre.mitre.org>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1993Jul1.102841.1786@relay.nswc.navy.mil> bwallet@apssgi.nswc.navy.
mil (Brad Wallet) writes:

  > no, no, no...u just don't get it...we enforce our standards...hey,
  > i even follow them (occasionally).  and your group follows its
  > standards.  and his group follows its standards.  and everyone's
  > code looks different.  Ada was designed to encourage / force good
  > coding practice...well, it dropped the ball on case sensitivity.

     You totally missed my point.  The nit picking rules about
capitalization, indenting, and spacing are noise.  With the right
tools I don't have to look at ugly all lower case code, and you don't
have to look at ugly mixed case code.  I can look at code with the
"standard" block comments at the end of the file, you can see them at
the front.  We even considered adding support for four different
styles of use clause usage. (No use clauses, use clauses for
predefined and global packages, use clauses for use of operators with
all identifiers fully qualified, and type and operator renaming.)

     Useful coding standards have nothing to do with such fascist
minutia.  Good coding standards talk about proper decomposition into
modules, use of partcular language features, what types of concurrency
various parts of the code should cope with, etc.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...