Re: status of Ada STL?

[18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)]

Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<u7kktk7tq.fsf@wanadoo.fr>...
> 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes:
> 
> > Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message news:<uofe7k6ut.fsf@wanadoo.f> >      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.
> 
> Ok, and with this one:
> 
>         package My_New_Package is \
>            new My_Package.My_Child_Generic_Package \
>                 (Name = ...,
>                  Xyz  = ...);
> 
> You need 2 backslashes, then because you have '(' you don't need them
> anymore... Consistency ??

I don't think you need the "\" after the is, and if you move the
opening "(" up to the same line as "new ...", you won't need that "\"
either. I think it looks better that way anyway. Here's how I'd write
it:

    package My_New_Package is
        new My_Package.My_Child_Generic_Package (
            Name = ...,
            Xyz  = ...
            )

No backslash line continuations are needed in this example either. And
they would rarely be needed in general if good formatting is used.
Long statements can usually be broken up AND made more readable by the
use of intermediate variables anyway.