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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,81bb2ce65a3240c3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.68.223.40 with SMTP id qr8mr933907pbc.0.1335661443004;
        Sat, 28 Apr 2012 18:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 r9ni110173pbh.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BrianG <me@null.email>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:03:59 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <jni422$ont$1@dont-email.me>
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
 <op.wda9xaojule2fv@douda-yannick> <op.wdg8qxb1ule2fv@douda-yannick>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2012 01:04:02 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="5MNoRlpIAhOS/jy0qxZerw";
	logging-data="25341"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SMnsIBlw4xfBSkVelX3re"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Thunderbird/3.1.16
In-Reply-To: <op.wdg8qxb1ule2fv@douda-yannick>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+VK1jykKdpf3FxdD/WD2DkK6IOM=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-04-28T21:03:59-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 04/28/2012 09:21 AM, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:
> Le Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:01:48 +0200, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)
> <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> a écrit:
...
> Le Tue, 17 Apr 2012 05:43:49 +0200, Randy Brukardt
> <randy@rrsoftware.com> a écrit:
>
>> "Georg Bauhaus" <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
>> news:4f8c93a0$0$6638$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...
...
>> This is irrelevant, because Ada requires the names of the parameters
>> to be
>> those used in *calls*. The names used in the body probably ought to be
>> nouns, but in calls, verbs or adjectives often work better:
>>
>> Leave (When => Now);
>>
>> It is a smallish fault of Ada, in fact, because there almost never are
>> names
>> that work well both in calls and in the body.
>
> Ability to give parameters, different names, one for body and one for
> invokation place.
>
> Actually, one can fake it choosing a name well suited for call‑places
> (where nothing can be done) and to use renaming of parameters in the
> body (this, is something that can be done). That said, this is far to be
> a priority, as we have renaming.
>
This is a problem that I would hate to see "fixed".  It would cause 
headaches for maintenance.  Imagine I have a large body of code that I 
have to maintain.  In researching a problem, I find something like
    This_Is_A_Procedure (Its_Parameter => Some_Value);
My problem relates to Some_Value, so I have to trace Its_Parameter.  I 
search for it, but it only occurs in this line and in the spec of 
This_Is_A_Procedure; the body, I guess, uses a different name in this 
"fix".  So I have to go from the call, to the spec parameter, to the 
body parameter, to the usages; I have to do this for every call, in 
every chain, every time.  That makes maintenance a pain.

With the "fake", there is a single line that associates the 'external' 
and 'internal' names.  I still have to do two searches, but I can't 
choose the way the code was written.

BTW, you can use a renames, or you can assign to a local variable, or to 
a local constant if the parameter is not going to be modified.

-- 
---
BrianG
000
@[Google's email domain]
.com