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-Thread: 103376,334f9012742e58fc
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.erje.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Gnat GPL 2010 available soon (conditional expressions)
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:28:32 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen
Message-ID: <i0dhh3$qh7$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <2010061621145016807-sjs@essexacuk>
 <op.veihbktxnfgb3u@richard.piraten.dd>
  <0fa4c574-9539-492f-8514-d32c68beb22a@w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <1frrgtpa5dycl$.12kl72iqsg3dx$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4c270613$0$6974$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <1wuwvzgwlwgli$.1birkinieia0d$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <f1a86f31-598c-4cb1-a60e-011da55f5feb@x27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
 <1ur19ais2ejih.mjbgdsv9pr66.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4c275562$0$6987$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <4c276114$0$2378$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1277839715 27175 69.95.181.76 (29 Jun 2010 19:28:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 19:28:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12962
Date: 2010-06-29T14:28:32-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Peter C. Chapin" <pcc482719@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:4c276114$0$2378$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net...
...
> Also I find that when skimming program text just knowing that something
> is conditional is sometimes enough for me to decide if I have to read it
> more closely or not. If it says
>
> X := (if Rare_Condition then
>         Complicated_Expression
>      else
>         Complicated_Expression);
>
> I might be able to quickly tell which complicated expression I need to
> look at without having to study both.

Note that one advantage of conditional expressions is that they can avoid 
duplicating code. For instance,

X(Index_Expression*Index_Base + 1) :=
   (if Condition then
         Complicated_Expression
    else
         Other_Complicated_Expression);

Probably is preferable to

if Condition then
   X(Index_Expression*Index_Base + 1) := Complicated_Expression;
else

   X(Index_Expression*Index_Base - 1) := Other_Complicated_Expression;
end if;

because it is much less likely to have a subtle error (like the second 
example I wrote above). I find that I write quite a bit of code of the 
second form, and I know I'd save time debugging if I had the first.

                                   Randy.

P.S. But the resolution of conditional expressions is surprisingly complex. 
I think we've got it right, finally.