Re: Real syntax problems in Ada

[stefan-lucks@see-the.signature]

I wrote:

> Similarly, we write "if B then null; else Do_Something end if;" instead of 
> "if B then else Do_Something end if;". This is an advantage of Ada that 
> improves readability and helps to catch flaws.  

Ooops! there is ";" missing behind "Do_Something". 

> Here we are hurt by another minor but annoying inconsistency of the Ada 
> syntax. Almost everywhere, we have to write "null" to make it explicit if 
> we ask for nothing, or for nothing additional. 

The inconsistency I mean is that, instead of writing "(null)" for the 
empty parameter list, we just skip the parameter list. 

> If we introduce the notation "(null)" for empty parameter lists, we can 
> easily solve your issue:
> 
>    generic procedure Baz_1 (with X: Integer) (null);
>      -- X is a generic formal object, 
>      -- (I am not sure if we should allow or even require "with" here.)
> 
>    generic procedure Baz_2 (null) (X: Integer);
>      -- X is a plain argument

-- 
---- Stefan.Lucks (at) uni-weimar.de, University of Weimar, Germany  ----
    <http://www.uni-weimar.de/cms/medien/mediensicherheit/home.html>
------  I  love  the  taste  of  Cryptanalysis  in  the  morning!  ------