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=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, PLING_QUERY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c9c0b66bbaefa4f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-19 01:50:16 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news-hog.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!nntp-relay.ihug.net!usenet.net.nz!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!news.xtra.co.nz!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "AG" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3D5D0D64.9070601@nbi.dk> <1oF79.6034$hk3.1116470@news.xtra.co.nz> <5ee5b646.0208181653.5e16fc05@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: best way to handle long strings!? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:52:25 +1200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.86.43.21 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 1029747016 210.86.43.21 (Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:50:16 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:50:16 NZST Organization: Xtra Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28211 Date: 2002-08-19T20:52:25+12:00 List-Id: "Robert Dewar" wrote in message news:5ee5b646.0208181653.5e16fc05@posting.google.com... > "AG" wrote in message news:<1oF79.6034$hk3.1116470@news.xtra.co.nz>... > > "Jacob Sparre Andersen" wrote in message > > news:3D5D0D64.9070601@nbi.dk... > > > > > If you > > > are going to edit Ada source code, which is line based > > > > Pardon me? Ada "line based" ? > > > I think it is fair to call Ada line based > > Pragmatically, of course Ada sources are files of lines. Currently, yes. But if someone was to write an Ada compiler for a paper-tape based machine with no concept of a line break even? Would that compiler stop being Ada? > > The standard talks of line breaks, and suggests laying > out the source in a definite line oriented manner. > > Furthermore, RM 2.2(2) says > > The text of a compilation is divided into lines. > However, the 2.2(1) says: "The text of each compilation is a sequence of separate lexical elements. Each lexical element is formed from a sequence of characters, and is either a delimiter, an identifier, a reserved word, a numeric_literal, a character_literal, a string_literal, or a comment. The meaning of a program depends only on the particular sequences of lexical elements ..." Also, the 2.2(2) goes on to add (after your quote) that "representation for an end of line is implementation defined". I'm not too sure about that one, but does it mean that an implementation is allowed to *not* represent the EOL at all, provided it has no problem compiling the result? > So I think the Pardon me? here is quite uncalled for :-) Sorry, I didn't mean it in any sort of offensive meaning. Just an expression of my personal surprise (for which I beg your pardon :-)