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 10.129.119.134 with SMTP id s128mr3995606ywc.25.1486770795795;
        Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:53:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.16.48 with SMTP id h45mr983176ote.10.1486770795754; Fri,
 10 Feb 2017 15:53:15 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!q58no688545qte.0!news-out.google.com!15ni2984itm.0!nntp.google.com!e137no71048itc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 15:53:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <o7la6e$pe$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=75.173.112.218;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.173.112.218
References: 
 <6cb6e781-c6df-4962-99e3-760e7c7fab88@googlegroups.com><k3ba9chta4hqdcv4q6npmrdbffsnfeoi8l@4ax.com><o73tvs$je$1@dont-email.me>
 <lyshntg9yh.fsf@pushface.org><o7fm37$4ir$1@dont-email.me>
 <o7ga31$6a9$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk><wcco9ybfahw.fsf@TheWorld.com>
 <o7io26$51i$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk> <wccfujnf042.fsf@TheWorld.com>
 <o7la6e$pe$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d2f912fb-2ac9-4a4a-b174-8f5b5d3a2ad7@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: I am not understanding user defined exceptions
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 23:53:15 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:33318
Date: 2017-02-10T15:53:15-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 2:09:36 PM UTC-7, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Robert A Duff"wrote in message 
> news:wccfujnf042.fsf...
> > "Randy Brukardt" writes:
> >
> >> Most likely:
> >>
> >>      X : Integer := ...; -- Static constant
> >>      X : constant Integer := ...; -- Non-static constant
> >>      X : variable Integer := ...; -- Variable.
> >>
> >> Since the default should be the safest thing.
> >
> > Well, at least we agree on one thing.  It's odd that Ada got it right
> > for parameters ('in' is the default), but got it wrong for object
> > declarations (variable is the default).
> >
> > I'd be happy with:
> >
> >     X : Integer := ...; -- constant
> >     X : var Integer := ...; -- variable
> 
> (1) Ada doesn't generally use abbreviations, thus "var" isn't a likely 
> keyword.
> 
> (2) It's important that all properties that clients can depend upon are 
> declarable, so clients aren't depending on accidental properties. (That's 
> the whole principle behind private types.) Static is such a property, so it 
> should be declarable (not necessarily have to be declared in all cases). 
> [Indeed, it should be possible to declare static private types - a whole 
> different kettle of fish.] Similarly, it would be nice if there was a way to 
> prevent people from depending upon the subtype profile of a subprogram (so 
> that it can later be changed if necessary). There's probably other such 
> properties (one would like to include formal parameter names in this sort of 
> restriction, but that would prevent named calls which would be evil.)
> 
>                                   Randy.

Randy, have you any experience with VHDL?
Some of what you're saying seems to have been done in VHDL.