Re: New Software Forum

[Ingo Marks <nospam_adv@region-nord.de>]

Kevin Cline wrote:

> Preben Randhol <randhol+news@pvv.org> wrote in message
> news:<slrnaoeprn.vb.randhol+news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>...
>> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 18:41:43 +0200, Ingo Marks wrote:
>> > Ingo Marks wrote:
>> > 
>> > or even this way :-)
>> >  
>> > Put_Line ("Iteration" & Num &
>> >           " Result:"  & Result &
>> >           " Time:"    & Elapsed_Time);
>> 
>> Well now we are borderlining the poor readability. In the previous
>> version I could at least know that Elapsed_Time was a Duration here it
>> can be anything. This is one of the great features of Ada that it is so
>> self-documenting.
> 
> This version is easier to read and easier to maintain.  I don't need to
> know the type of Elapsed_Time to understand this statement, and the
> compiler already knows the type and shouldn't need to be told again.
> Repeating the type here reduces readability and makes the code more
> sensitive to a change in the type of Elapsed_Time.

The compiler doesn't need extra specification but an unbiased reader of 
your source would appreciate it.

For myself I always use the short form for integer (or ranges of it) only. 
So I would prefer

Put_Line ("Iteration" & Num &
          " Result:"  & Result &
          " Time:"    & Duration'Image(Elapsed_Time));

If it is inevitable that the type of Elapsed_Time may change in future then 
it could be good idea to define a subtype:

subtype My_Duration is Duration;

Put_Line ("Iteration" & Num &
          " Result:"  & Result &
          " Time:"    & My_Duration'Image(Elapsed_Time));

If you have to change the type you just need to change one line (hopefully).

Regards,
Ingo