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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.52.109.69 with SMTP id hq5mr33920357vdb.5.1438269196955;
        Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.140.104.147 with SMTP id a19mr640992qgf.2.1438269196935;
 Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!z61no4196993qge.0!news-out.google.com!b31ni1442qge.0!nntp.google.com!z61no4196992qge.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 08:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <lybneuya0a.fsf@pushface.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=81.203.145.32;
 posting-account=AFCLjAoAAABJAOf_HjgEEEi3ty-lG5m2
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.203.145.32
References: <e610ca1e-4df6-4fbb-b3a1-ac35694d9072@googlegroups.com>
 <mp645u$abo$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <2df4698f-4c8e-457c-822d-209cb2f8ab5e@googlegroups.com>
 <mp8r8l$fnn$1@loke.gir.dk> <lywpxjxxza.fsf@pushface.org>
 <mpbb7i$vmi$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <lybneuya0a.fsf@pushface.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <c8321f5c-71e0-46cc-a04d-a20f848983bd@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Running a preprocessor from GPS?
From: EGarrulo <egarrulo@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:13:16 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:27217
Date: 2015-07-30T08:13:16-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wednesday, July 29, 2015 at 10:37:48 PM UTC+2, Simon Wright wrote:
> "Randy Brukardt"  writes:
> 
> > "Simon Wright" wrote in message 
> > ...
> >> I haven't used them often, but don't see the problem with
> >>
> >>      return Tick * Time_Base ((if System.FreeRTOS.Tasks.In_ISR
> >>                                then xTaskGetTickCountFromISR
> >>                                else xTaskGetTickCount));
> >
> > Verbosity, for one. Second, the hiding of the control structure. In
> > general, it's better to write the control structure out in a
> > subprogram body, it's a lot more readable.
> 
> I dunno. The version below is quite verbose, and verges on being less
> readable. But this is a style issue, I think.
> 
>       if System.FreeRTOS.Tasks.In_ISR then
>          return Tick * Time_Base (xTaskGetTickCountFromISR);
>       else
>          return Tick * Time_Base (xTaskGetTickCount);
>       end if;

KISS solution:

       TickCount := (if System.FreeRTOS.Tasks.In_ISR
                     then xTaskGetTickCountFromISR
                     else xTaskGetTickCount)
       return Tick * Time_Base (TickCount);

or:

       if System.FreeRTOS.Tasks.In_ISR then 
          TickCount := xTaskGetTickCountFromISR;
       else 
          TickCount := xTaskGetTickCount;
       end if;
       return Tick * Time_Base (TickCount);

:)

The above snippets distinguish between the variable expression and
the derived expression.  I think that the latter form is more
readable.

By the way, you don't have to wrap the expression in double
parentheses (like in the original snippet).