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,d00514eb0749375b X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Shark8 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: initialize an array (1-D) at elaboration using an expression based on the index? Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 12:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <1f6bad81-e3d2-428b-a1a0-45acc7f96f68@m7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <9df4e5eb-fba7-4e8c-ba44-cd1ad4081d3b@26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> <985a178c-8dfc-48af-9871-76a64750a571@l14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <2penc6lgsop1583vmg9i0m429ri4ajaf9n@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 174.28.254.71 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: posting.google.com 1288551620 5007 127.0.0.1 (31 Oct 2010 19:00:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 19:00:20 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com; posting-host=174.28.254.71; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0E),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15061 Date: 2010-10-31T12:00:20-07:00 List-Id: > ... having been raised on Algol-W I am delighted to see them come back. > > Is it their unfamiliarity that disturbs you? No, not so much. I don't see how they are [strictly-speaking] necessary, given that we have declare-blocks (which can be arbitrarily-nested). Granted, they would make it a lot less verbose in many cases. {BTW, if we're going to allow if/then statements inside expressions & assignments/initializations then what's keeping us from using case- statements too?} > > They don't appear to have the same possibility for disaster as your C example, > and have been around in some form in VHDL for decades. That's quite true. However, I've learned to be careful around C/C++; they are full of little inconsistencies that the compiler will happily consume, only to surprise you twenty minutes before the assignment is due [for students] or eight months after you've deployed your software [for businesses]. > (In the combinatorial/parallel part of the language. VHDL2008 reintroduces them > to the sequential part, inside processes) Interesting; what is the VHDL syntax for them, if I might ask?