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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,77bf8fb943650b32
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: type declaration problem(beginner)
Date: 1997/03/02
Message-ID: <dewar.857344692@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 222617851
References: <1997Feb26.120011.27@whisky>
 <19970302214000.QAA14807@ladder02.news.aol.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


John Herro said

<<The second example is written the way it is because it's always a good idea to q
ualify the aggregate when "others" follows named notation.  This was more import
ant in Ada 83 than it is in Ada 95, but it's still a good idea.  The "Set_Type'"
 before the "(" is called qualifying the aggregate.
>>

No, that is superstition, there is no point in putting in unnecessary
qualifications, and this one is unnecessary. It may be a good idea if
you do not understand the rules, but in practice in Ada 95, you can
indeed avoid junk qualifications in cases like this.

It is true that in Ada 83, the qualification was needed in some cases where
it appears unnecessary, so many people adopt the style of using it all the
time in Ada 83, but this is a bit of Ada 83 superstition that need not be
carried forward to Ada 95. Write the qualification only if it helps
readability (in the quoted case, it clearly does NOT do so)