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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d00514eb0749375b
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Phil Clayton <phil.clayton@lineone.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: initialize an array (1-D) at elaboration using an expression
 based on the index?
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:26:06 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <cfc9c47e-ae23-43af-85f0-f243a25afb5c@26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
References: <i9amkr$goj$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1f6bad81-e3d2-428b-a1a0-45acc7f96f68@m7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <9df4e5eb-fba7-4e8c-ba44-cd1ad4081d3b@26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>
 <ade14be1-de0a-4dfa-a2a5-6009fa6da139@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <985a178c-8dfc-48af-9871-76a64750a571@l14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 91.110.248.6
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1288394766 1689 127.0.0.1 (29 Oct 2010 23:26:06
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:26:06 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com; posting-host=91.110.248.6;
 posting-account=v7gx3AoAAABfjb9m5b7l_Lt2KVEgQBIe
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.15)
 Gecko/2009102704 Fedora/3.0.15-1.fc10 Firefox/3.0.15,gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:15917
Date: 2010-10-29T16:26:06-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Oct 25, 3:23=A0am, Shark8 <onewingedsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 4:48=A0pm, Phil Clayton <phil.clay...@lineone.net> wrote:
> > With that view, it
> > seems a fairly simple extension to the language from a technical
> > perspective.
>
> True enough; however just because something is easy (or *CAN* be done)
> doesn't make it the right thing.
> The C/C++ allowance of assignments within the conditional-test is a
> good example of something that *CAN* be done that shouldn't be.

Sure, and no doubt it isn't quite as easy as it seems.


> The syntax of the proposed (for ... ) construct simply look _wrong_ to
> me, like a human-knee bending backward. {I think the same about the
> new conditional expressions too, they simply go against the grain of
> the rest of the language IMO.}

Mmm.. nice image!  For me, I am only slightly twitchy about the syntax
due to an irrational fear of drowning in parentheses.  What sort of
syntax would look natural to you?

Phil