Re: Real syntax problems in Ada

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:38:26 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
> news:1w3xr2kbz8a19$.wpfoz4p1j1sb.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:14:15 -0700 (PDT), Adam Beneschan wrote:
> ...
>> Speaking of generics, the formal parameter declarations could be more
>> regular:
>>
>> generic
>>   type T ...;
>>   Object : T;
>>
>> but
>>
>> generic
>>   with procedure Foo ...;
>>   with package Bar ...;
>>
>> From formal part one could expect following the pattern:
>>
>>   <name> : <type> [:= <default>]
>>
>> On the other hand, it is also clear why one would like to keep it visually
>> different from the signature of a subprogram.
> 
> It's not a case of "liking"; without the "with", the syntax would be 
> ambiguous, as a generic unit can be a subprogram. And remember that Ada is 
> technically free-form, so the indentation and line-endings are irrelevant. 
> So
>     generic
>          function Foo...
>     ...

No, I meant rather this:

   generic package P (Foo : function return Integer; Q : package...) is ...

instead of

   generic
      with function Foo return Integer;
      with package Q ...;
   package P is ...

The problem with that could be distinguishing generic and non-generic
signatures of generic subroutines:

   generic procedure Baz (X : Integer);

Is X here a generic formal object or a plain argument of Baz?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de