Re: Why Ada is not the Commercial Lang of Choice

[dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)]

Don Harrison says, rather irrelevantly:

<<:Don said
:
:<<However, they differ in that digits must be grouped in threes. Grouping in
:threes is an arbitrary choice and, IMO, too restrictive. For example, it makes
:no sense for base 2 literals. OTOH, I think Ada's free placement is too liberal
:because it allows different groupings within the same literal.
:
:Something in between is probably optimal - like allowing any grouping but with
:the restriction that it must be consistent within a literal.
:>>
:
:I strongly disagree, it is none of the language's business how I want to
:group things, since it depends on the abstract semantics of the item
:involved:
:
:  Last_OK_Date : constant := 99_12_31;
:
:is perfectly reasonable.

Really? I would have thought such use of integers created a huge potential
for abuse. For example,
>>


Why irrelevant? Because this post is not about whether or not it is a good
idea to use integers as dates, it is about the use of underlines if you
*do* use integers as dates. For example, if you are using a library
routine that expects an integer for the date, then it is nice to be
able to spell the constants that way. (when using canned library
routines, one does not generally have the luxury of refusing to use
the interface on the grounds that you don't like the design!

So when I say this is reasonable, (I thought it was obvious from
context), I mean it is reasonable to use underscores as written,
rather than be forced, as in Eiffel, to use 991_231!