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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,92c39a3be0a7f17d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-11 05:52:58 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail
From: Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Future with Ada
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:52:57 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: GMUGHDU
Message-ID: <a6icrp$b9n$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
References: <mailman.1005328653.20306.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
   <mailman.1014918362.4599.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <3C7E7CAD.7070504@mail.com> <3C7FB9D2.D9C6E055@boeing.com>
 <3C81DF1F.9000503@mail.com> <a5tmpv$aek$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
 <3C83A112.6080302@mail.com> <3C84223C.A356F466@adaworks.com>
 <3C853A04.34826F39@despammed.com> <a63fda$er$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <a65gj5$n73$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <a65jhi$112$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <a6831k$3ls$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <a68599$8na$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de
X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1015854777 11575 134.91.4.34 (11 Mar 2002
 13:52:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:52:57 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00
 (9000/800))
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21047
Date: 2002-03-11T13:52:57+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Marin David Condic <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote:

:  Say you have an enumeration with 20 values
: and a case statement handling it with 10 statements per enumeral. That's 200
: lines + overhead, right? Would you create something like:

What I might consider is turning the enumeration into
something that allows branching by other means than an explicit case
statement. If that wasn't too artificial, or overdoing things.
And I wouldn't turn away from a case statement if the
cases depended on one input variable (and a lookahead, perhaps?).
Does this seem like O.K.? Still, I find "end case/if foo" too inviting;
Might prevent overuse of case/if if these are left as they are now ;-)

irrelevant side note: Knuth has made heavy use of nested cases
in his literate programming tools, squeezing a case into a screen or
less by way of named sections, similar to what you have written.

: 
: case (var) is
:    when First_Enum =>
...
:    when others =>
:        Do_Another_Case_In_A_Procedure (var) ; -- I *would* object to this.
: end case ;
: 
: procedure Do_Another_Case_In_A_Procedure (var : in var_type) is