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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: A question about syntax or semantics Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 16:35:55 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <79ced891-4a1a-4008-ade8-875228e5dc03@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1400535357 3998 69.95.181.76 (19 May 2014 21:35:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 21:35:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:186486 Date: 2014-05-19T16:35:55-05:00 List-Id: "Adam Beneschan" wrote in message news:79ced891-4a1a-4008-ade8-875228e5dc03@googlegroups.com... On Saturday, May 17, 2014 3:56:20 PM UTC-7, Victor Porton wrote: ... >> Why it is significant to have it only for the first formal parameter? >> >> Please explain with examples. > >Well, this thread took some pretty bizarre turns, for reasons I don't >understand. (1) It's mid-May - aka, Finals time. (2) The question is believable, but the "please explain with examples" is a weird demand; it doesn't seem to relate to the question. The only place I'd expect such a demand is in an essay question in an exam. >This looks more like a "why did the language designers do it this way" >question than an exam question to me... Could be. But is there any other sane choice? I don't think we (the ARG, aka the language designers) spent 1 minute on any other possible meaning of this construct. (Some of the details, like tagged-only versus any type, took a lot longer, and how to describe it in the standard was tricky, but there never was any doubt about the basic meaning.) I'm actually quite surprised that you managed to think of other possible meanings and make them sound semi-plausible. :-) Ergo (3), the question seems contrived, since there isn't any other sensible option. That's more of a characteristic of an exam question than a real question. Of course, we all could be wrong. You've done a fine job of answering the question in that case. Randy.