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: 2002-06-20 00:58:52 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: 20 Jun 2002 00:58:52 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1024559932 26534 127.0.0.1 (20 Jun 2002 07:58:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Jun 2002 07:58:52 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26463 Date: 2002-06-20T07:58:52+00:00 List-Id: Pascal Obry wrote in message news:... > 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes: > > > Also, I do not see why "\" is so bad. Fortran uses "&", which is > > Let me show you (have you ever tried you syntax proposal yourself ????): > > My_Function_Call > (First_Parameter => 1, > Second_Parameter => "whatever", > Third_Parameter => (1, 8, 9 10, 2, 0), > Last_One => 12.89); > > vs. > > My_Function_Call \ > (First_Parameter => 1, \ > Second_Parameter => "whatever", \ > Third_Parameter => (1, 8, 9 10, 2, 0), \ > Last_One => 12.89) > > So you have removed one ";" and added four "\" !!!!! Actually, you don't need ANY backslashes in your example (if you put the open "(" on the first line of the function call). If a "(" is unanswered by a ")", the compiler knows that the statement must continue on the next line. > > preferable, but that symbol is already used in Ada. The backslash is > > used in many scripting languages, so it seems appropriate to me. > > Do you have a Ada-F parser ? If so start using it, put it on your web page > along with some nice examples. Good idea. > > You Ada guys are so worried about having two slightly different > > dialects of Ada, but a much bigger problem for Ada is that it uses > > basic syntax that is inconsistent with all the other major languages > > in widespread use today, as I explained above. Unless you guys wake up > > to that fact, I'm afraid Ada is on the way out -- and that's a shame. > > You Russ, you are trying to push a new syntax based on some "dreams" and you > have actually never used it :) You seem to have not even taken the time to > write some simple Ada-F sources... credibility ? You have a point.