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: 103376,6aa1ec264ce25142
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.180.105.38 with SMTP id gj6mr2849222wib.0.1346223536106;
        Tue, 28 Aug 2012 23:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 e9ni69101002wia.0!nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Real syntax problems in Ada
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:58:59 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <a7fajtasftcd.wpdq5ukic2ny.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <1p5r39cusgc1n$.18nj9sytckk6$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <289703e7-1fba-41ce-b781-9e58ff2ec7df@googlegroups.com>
 <1w3xr2kbz8a19$.wpfoz4p1j1sb.dlg@40tude.net> <k1jdol$id7$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: FbOMkhMtVLVmu7IwBnt1tw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-08-29T08:58:59+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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