Re: status of Ada STL?

["SteveD" <nospam_steved94@attbi.com>]

"Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:bebbba07.0206151051.1c25cf1e@posting.google.com...
[snip]
>
> I also happen to think that Ada's awkward syntax is part of the
> problem. My proposal for a cleaner Ada syntax option can be found at
> http://RussP.org/Ada.htm
>

I also think there are awkward areas of syntax in Ada, but disagree with ALL
of your examples.  I think it is naive to think that such minor syntax
changes would have any positive impact on the use of Ada.

If the syntax is introduced as an alternate, the result is what I call YABL
(yet another bastard language).

The things I find awkward about Ada syntax...

If you look at blocks of code you have:

  if  condition then
    ...
  end if;

  while condition loop
    ...
  end loop;

If you look at type definitions you have:

  type mytype is
    record
     ...
    end record;

Each of these cases clearly define the scope of a block or type definition.
Now if I move on to tagged types I have:

  package mydemo is

    type mytype is abstract tagged null record;

    procedure MyProc1( value : mytype );

    type anothertype is new mytype with null record;

    procedure MyProc2( value : mytype );

end mydemo;

When I compile this with GNAT 3.14p I get the following:

  mydemo.ads:7:03: warning: no primitive operations for "mytype" after this
  mydemo.ads:9:13: this primitive operation is declared too late

After working with Pascal and C, I was pleased to learn Ada and appreciate
that if, while, case, and for constructs all have an explicit end construct.
I am disappointed that primitive operations, which are really part of a
tagged type construct do not have an explicit end of primititive operations
construct.

I would much prefer:
  type mytype is abstract tagged
    record
       null;
    end record
    methods
      procedure MyProc1( value : mytype );
    end methods;

Or for that matter any notation that explicitly marks the end of primitive
operations on a tagged type declaration.  This kind of ambiguity is what
other languages are good for.  Like C++... hey wait a minute  ;-)

This is one of my few peeves with Ada.  But I can't say that changing this
would have any significant impact on market penetration.

SteveD