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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,81054609038e88e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.gbronline.com!news.gbronline.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:49:27 -0500 Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2004 18:49:57 -0500 From: Wes Groleau Reply-To: groleau+news@freeshell.org Organization: Ain't no organization here! User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Macintosh/20040803) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Literate Programming in Ada, AdaDoc, AdaBrowse References: <2sqmccF1oit5sU1@uni-berlin.de> <2sr4jaF1od20uU1@uni-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <2sr4jaF1od20uU1@uni-berlin.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.9.86.83 X-Trace: sv3-LHI44VXoYwh9tXvMkG+/ltPxlmhysq5kifbEnTCljPR/rzSn9mCGTRdnOG3+6tvTMC0TPPeOw77fo4J!DWNf+BRScZhfIEhlyqo63wCEHFwjJYawtcm4OeCFBoXi5ZQPBDFuf+j/F/m+vaXeCfVra+es01CA X-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.19 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4974 Date: 2004-10-09T18:49:57-05:00 List-Id: Nick Roberts wrote: > -- =###= The {Color_Error} Exception =###= > > -- There is one color-related exception, {Color_Error}. > > Color_Error: exception; What does the first line tell you that the third does not? If the answer is nothing, then why can't the tool get the info from line three? In my opinion, well-written Ada code can be it's own documentation. Sure, readers will want to skip over some code and/or some comments (different readers will skip different parts) but I see no point in having the same info two or more times in two or more formats even if some tool splits it up for human consumption. I certainly see no point in omitting the comments from the code and instead burying them in pages of bureaucratic boilerplate in some 500-page specification. A corollary of Murphy's law is that duplicate information eventually becomes different information. Putting both in the same file may slow down the process, but it will not prevent it. -- Wes Groleau People would have more leisure time if it weren't for all the leisure-time activities that use it up. -- Peg Bracken