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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f44e8b91bd1d669d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-17 12:21:50 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!ra.nrl.navy.mil!dca6-feed2.news.algx.net!allegiance!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!diablo.theplanet.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.r-kom.de!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Steve Caddy" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <5ee5b646.0205170201.2582c8ef@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: Unusual syntax X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 20:23:40 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.254.11.223 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net 1021663308 62.254.11.223 (Fri, 17 May 2002 20:21:48 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 20:21:48 BST Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24303 Date: 2002-05-17T20:23:40+01:00 List-Id: "Robert Dewar" wrote in message news:5ee5b646.0205170201.2582c8ef@posting.google.com... > But here is a constructive suggestion. Get an online version of the RM. When > you find something that surprises you, it is often trivial to track it down > with a search, as in this case, you could just search for ! and immediately > find the reference to this language features (which has been around in the > standard for nearly 20 years now!) I did think of searching my copy of the LRM (provided on an old BURKS CD), but all I got was an unhelpful "this version of the LRM cannot be searched" sort of message. So I guessed and looked at the syntax for a case statement. When that didn't work, I rattled through the FAQ for this group for answers. Still having no joy, I decided to post. Anyway, thanks for all the help... you can't possibly imagaine the number of coding standards issues this has turned up among the team I work in. Fortunately it's Friday today, so after a coffee and a laugh, we decided to leave obsolecent features in the graveyard that is the past. These opens the question, will they actually be removed in a future incarnation of Ada, or is backward compatibility that a vital feature to Ada? Steve -- Steven M Caddy, MEng ----------------------------------------------------- "Paediatrician?....Oh! A foot specialist!" Email: dyn@m0ng.com