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,a571dbe59eac7150
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: new language construct proposed
Date: 1998/02/01
Message-ID: <dewar.886366536@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 321162796
References: <6avo1d$sul@lotho.delphi.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 886366726 22096 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-02-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


tmoran said

<<How is that different from
  if boolean_expression then raise exception_name;end if;
>>

Well of course, as we all understand, it is *not* different at all. We
are talking minor convenience here, nothing more. But note that the
above argument would equally well argue against the inclusion of

   exit loopname when <<expression>>

in the language.

I think the reason that we justify it for exit, and not for raise
(and most CERTAINLY not for all simple statements, nasty thought ...)
is that exit is rather special since it is essentially part of the
structure of a loop.