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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,6aa1ec264ce25142
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.204.154.76 with SMTP id n12mr770289bkw.1.1346364401225;
        Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.182.74 with SMTP id cb10mr4266956qab.0.1346364401000;
        Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.170.7 with SMTP id o7mr749327yhl.3.1346364400934; Thu, 30
 Aug 2012 15:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 m12ni151072bkm.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!r1no9315qas.0!news-out.google.com!da15ni5444qab.0!nntp.google.com!r1no9306qas.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1p5r39cusgc1n$.18nj9sytckk6$.dlg@40tude.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=206.53.78.59;
 posting-account=ShYTIAoAAABytvcS76ZrG9GdaV-nXYKy
NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.53.78.59
References: <1p5r39cusgc1n$.18nj9sytckk6$.dlg@40tude.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <cad06a60-bc98-4d48-9f6f-236b14298325@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Real syntax problems in Ada
From: sbelmont700@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:06:40 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-08-30T15:06:40-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:13:02 AM UTC-4, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> What are real problems with Ada syntax as opposed to the imaginary ones

Not that it's a syntax problem, but I've always been suprised by the choice=
 to use 'all' to explicitly dereference an access value; I don't think a ca=
sual reader of the langauge would be able to guess what it does.  Hey, if w=
e can refer to p.all to talk about 'all' of the object, then shouldn't ther=
e be a p.some to talk about just a partial part? :-)=20

-sb