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,c3a7c1845ec5caf9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Equality operator overloading in ADA 83
Date: 1997/05/04
Message-ID: <dewar.862718892@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 239224440
References: <01bc4e9b$ac0e7fa0$72041dc2@lightning>
 <335F5971.6375@elca-matrix.ch> <E95y9L.AK1@world.std.com>
 <dewar.861930356@merv> <E973qr.89t@world.std.com>
 <01bc5244$315f1560$28f982c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> <dewar.862079014@merv>
 <mheaney-ya023680002604971931400001@news.ni.net>
 <01bc54ef$2621d680$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Nick says

<<I agree that full coverage is an essential part of the case statement, but,
with respect, I think Robert is wrong to say that therefore this idea can
have 'no meaning' for extended case statements: it seems to me that there
would simply have to be a requirement (in the language rules) that there
was an 'others' alternative in any such extended case statement, and this
would then guarantee coverage (similarly to the rules for case statements
whose control expression is of a type which is a formal generic (discrete)
type).>>

But in general we follow the rule in Ada of not using the others clause
precisely because it disables an important check. A case statement that
requires an others is entirely equivalent to a set of elsif's, so why
have an alternative syntax.