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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f51e93dacd9c7fca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-16 22:29:56 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: status of Ada STL?
Date: 16 Jun 2002 22:29:55 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <bebbba07.0206162129.67f3a244@posting.google.com>
References: <bebbba07.0206132321.23d72ac8@posting.google.com>
 <aedgoc$to7$1@news.iucc.ac.il>
 <bebbba07.0206151051.1c25cf1e@posting.google.com> <uu1o31wbb.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <bebbba07.0206161023.6073fd3a@posting.google.com> <ulm9f0z8p.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1024291796 29127 127.0.0.1 (17 Jun 2002 05:29:56
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Jun 2002 05:29:56 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26120
Date: 2002-06-17T05:29:56+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<ulm9f0z8p.fsf@wanadoo.fr>...
> 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes:
> 
> > I really don't understand the objection to my proposal. 
> 
> I've read them all. I see nothing here that will make Ada read better. You
> have 7 rules, all of them are very minor points and in each time your proposal
> seems just more confusing to me.
> 
> I don't know if you have a more extensive description for your changes ? Do
> you have examples ?
> 
> Let's try a simple one :
> 
> Here is the Ada version:
> 
>    procedure Dummy is
> 
>       subtype My_Int is Integer range 1 .. 1_024;
> 
>       procedure Proc (C : out My_Int; A, B : in My_Int := 1) is
>          I : constant Integer := 9;
>       begin
>          if A = 12 then
>             C := A + B + I;
>          end if;
> 
>          C := C * (A + 2 * B);
>       end Proc;
> 
>       R : My_Int;
> 
>    begin
>       Proc (A => 2, B => 8, C => R);
>    end Dummy;
> 
> Here is the Ada-F version :
> 
>    procedure Dummy is
> 
>       subtype My_Int is Integer range 1 : 1_024;
> 
>       procedure Proc (C : out My_Int; A, B = 1 : in My_Int) is
>          I = 9 : constant Integer;
>       begin
>          if A == 12 then
>             C = A + B + I
>          end if;
> 
>          C *= (A + 2 * B)
>       end Proc;
> 
>       R : My_Int;
> 
>    begin
>       Proc (A = 2, B = 8, C = R)
>    end Dummy
> 
> (I have not use rule 1 nor 7)
> 
> Are you still saying that Ada-F is looking better than Ada ?

Yes I am. And thanks for the demo. If you get rid of the semicolons it
will look even better.

> One very nasty effect is "A, B = 1 : in My_Int" it looks like only B is
> set to 1.

That's why I'd say only B should be set to 1. That allows me to set A
to something else.