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: 103376,1e3f2eac5c026e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-26 23:40:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Other Ada Standards (was Re: SIGada Conference) Date: 26 Dec 2003 23:40:58 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B08@VS2.hdi.tvcabo> <3FE991DD.5060301@noplace.com> <3FEA5C82.8050309@noplace.com> <3FEB047A.1040100@noplace.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1072510859 16877 127.0.0.1 (27 Dec 2003 07:40:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 07:40:59 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3840 Date: 2003-12-26T23:40:58-08:00 List-Id: > :> Georg Bauhaus wrote: > :> > > :> > I don't think, after reading what Robert Duff, Robert Eachus, and > :> > Marin Condic have written, that we can say this is small/tiny, > :> > that is big. On what basis? Because something _looks_ tiny to us > :> > non-compiler writers? > > : For crying out loud, I could do it myself in 30 minutes, > : and that includes 10 minutes to think about it and another 10 minutes > : to test it! > > At least for the "implies" case, I couldn't even list the pieces of the > language definition that will have to be taken into consideration. > Congratulations :-) How about overloading, generics, use in bodies, > private library units, use inside subprograms, etc etc... Or do you > suggest that the number of rules in the language be increased > for special cases in order to cater for *less verbosity* in in Ada? I think you need to reread my post that you replied to here (the part you cut out of the quote above). I meant that "with/use x;" would simply be shorthand for "with x; use x;" I can write a Python script to convert it to that in 30 minutes. Yes, I realize that the reality is *slightly* harder than that because a script preprocessor would be slightly inefficient, but you should get the idea. If a compiler writer has a problem with a matter that trivial, I think he is in the wrong business. > For the "with and use" case, what is your interpretation of > "with and use A.B;" > Is it "with A.B; use A.B;" or is it "with A; use A.B;"? > Which interpretation is to be chosen? As I wrote in my original post, "with/use A.B;" would be exactly equivalent to "with A.B; use A.B;" It's simple text substitution. Nothing the slightest bit fancy or complicated. If the latter would not compile, neither will the former. Please don't make it more complicated than it is.