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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,577df5d4a0e88785 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2000-12-12 20:04:27 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!news.iac.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!howland.erols.net!nntp.flash.net!news.flash.net!not-for-mail From: "Ken Garlington" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: constant string array X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 04:00:37 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.215.67.132 X-Complaints-To: abuse@flash.net X-Trace: news.flash.net 976680037 216.215.67.132 (Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:00:37 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:00:37 CST Organization: FlashNet Communications, http://www.flash.net Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3040 Date: 2000-12-13T04:00:37+00:00 List-Id: "Beard, Frank" wrote in message news:B6A1A9B09E52D31183ED00A0C9E0888C469941@nctswashxchg.nctswash.navy.mil.. . : -----Original Message----- : From: Robert Dewar [mailto:robert_dewar@my-deja.com] : : >> As in "if () then", no matter what "()" contained. : : >Well the () are useless noise REGARDLESS of what they enclose : >since there is no precedence issues etc in this case. : : What case? You don't even know what case I'm talking : about. If () contains, "a * b + c", does it now deal : with precedence. You seem to think I'm talking about : simple cases here. I'm talking about all cases. : For consistency, the decision was made, not by me if I : haven't made that clear yet, to use parens in all cases. : : >> They wanted consistency and it wasn't worth arguing, : >> because "if (success) then" is no harder to read than : >> "if success then" : > : >There is no more justification for this than a silly rule : >that requires all right hand sides to be in parentheses. : >The argument could equally well be that : > : > a := (success); : > : >is no harder to read then : > : > a := success; : : Wrong! Because we consistently code: : : a := success; : : not : : a:= (success); But, if you consistently coded a := (success); then it would by OK, right? I say, why stop at one set? I think a nice rule would be to encode tests in double parentheses, similar to label constructs, i.e. if ((a * b + c)) then ... end if; so that, if you're doing structural test coverage analysis, you can find the essential elements easily. Wouldn't that just be a lovely standard?