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 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.215.68 with SMTP id hd4mr14679493qab.5.1371847404262; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:43:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.2.34 with SMTP id 2mr913igr.8.1371847403054; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:43:23 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.bbs-scene.org!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.11.MISMATCH!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!j2no1136114qak.0!news-out.google.com!y6ni3811qax.0!nntp.google.com!j2no1136113qak.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:43:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <7f33982d-3bcf-452e-a3b3-3a0a28505ff1@x20g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> <87r4g0g9c0.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> <87ip1bg4z2.fsf_-_@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> <53d0b070-a03b-43d0-a560-68dd3a8bebf5@googlegroups.com> <51c218df$0$6623$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Elaboration order handling (Was: Bug in 'gnatmake') From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 20:43:24 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 3477 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:15882 Date: 2013-06-21T13:43:22-07:00 List-Id: On Friday, June 21, 2013 11:35:28 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Carter wrote: > On 06/21/2013 08:48 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote: > None of those are places the language could require a null statement, so = I think=20 > you're comparing apples to oranges. >=20 > (By "statement", I mean something with a terminator semicolon that I coun= t as a=20 > statement when counting statements, which includes declarations. By "null= =20 > statement" I mean a statement identical to Ada's null statement, even if = it's a=20 > declaration. All you said was "I like the idea that something that's empty has to have s= omething special in it to show that it's deliberately empty." You didn't s= ay that that applied only to things ending in a semicolon. Don't blame me = for "comparing apples to oranges" when all you said was "fruit". > So, yes, the language could require a null statement in a =20 > declarative part.) Well, it could have, prior to Ada 2005. That's no longer possible, because= of null procedures. > It appears that the language designers considered declarative regions to = be =20 > different enough from executable regions to require null statements in th= e=20 > latter and not the former, and most people go along with that without rea= lly=20 > thinking about it. I thought about it and don't see a significant distinc= tion.=20 Then why do you want a separate declarative part at all? Many popular lang= uages these days don't separate the two, and let you put declarations anywh= ere you can put a code statement, or even in the middle of another statemen= t. So if you don't see a significant distinction, why not be consistent? -- Adam