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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c733905936c6b6b0
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.233.69 with SMTP id tu5mr11305467pbc.6.1334623750528;
        Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni64681pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:49:07 -0500
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 20:48:55 -0400
From: "Peter C. Chapin" <PChapin@vtc.vsc.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: [OT] interesting reason why a language is considered good
References: <jme7r1$eo7$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <8603135.951.1334573001928.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbdy9>
In-Reply-To: <8603135.951.1334573001928.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbdy9>
Message-ID: <R7GdnQm8I-iYIxHSRVn_vwA@giganews.com>
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: 
 sv3-JMQ45N9L7PWPs8po5lCdS6CZ/MakrGMQu33VH+fzDjVy/XzxOUJ8cWIFCYFYgVQfJ8YDudkzGtCYRQO!8u3OOuR94SNbB4vNQWajLVkoKw8kKga28daq9WGJZfUNgCSXaU2w23p+XRVvJZA=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
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: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2156
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-04-16T20:48:55-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2012-04-16 06:43, Marius Amado-Alves wrote:

> Actually there is a bit of truth in the absurd no keyword thing:
> *many* keywords can get in the way of naming identifiers. Ada, for
> one, has a bit too many keywords, with some good identifier
> candidates (when, others...)

I think it's good that Ada reserves a number of simple words like "with" 
and "others" and "is." That way when new features are added and new 
syntax is needed it's relatively easy to find existing words to support 
the new syntax. For example: aspect clauses introduced with "with" and 
multiple inheritance of interfaces introduced with "and."

I know there was much gnashing of teeth about adding "some" to Ada 
2012's list of reserved words but now that it's done, and now that Ada 
reserves both "some" and "all," who knows what interesting uses those 
words can be put to in the future. :)

Peter