From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Two more AQS-95 questions
Date: 1998/02/03
Date: 1998-02-03T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dewar.886511060@merv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 34D60055.1FFF@gc057.fw.hac.com
Wes says
<<1) In 3.2.6, why "use a constant ... when the value must be static"
but "named numbers, ... whenever possible." Isn't a named number
static? Is there an advantage to a (typed) constant for
"staticness" ?
>>
This is totally incorrect advice. Not just harmless, but actively harmful.
Named numbers are untyped. Their use is only appropriate if from a
conceptual point of view, the constant value *is* untyped, for example
pi : constant := 3.14....
is OK, because conceptually pi is an untyped pure number.
If a constant is typed, then it is definitely MUCH more desirable to
type the constant, so that you get proper type checking on its use.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1998-02-03 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1998-02-02 0:00 Two more AQS-95 questions Wes Groleau
1998-02-03 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
1998-02-05 0:00 ` K. E. Garlington
1998-02-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox