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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,227757d168eaa8a5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "David C. Hoos, Sr." Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: A question re meaning/use of the "for ... use ..." Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 20:40:11 -0600 Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <41b3291e$0$44072$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1102387285 28302 212.85.156.195 (7 Dec 2004 02:41:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 02:41:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Return-Path: X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6814 Date: 2004-12-06T20:40:11-06:00 Is a case statement not a "transfer of control?" Are the exception choices of exception handler(s) not a "transfer of control?" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Carter" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada To: Sent: December 06, 2004 7:36 PM Subject: Re: A question re meaning/use of the "for ... use ..." > Randy Brukardt wrote: > >> The ARG discussed this long ago, and concluded that such a facility isn't >> needed. That's because Unchecked_Conversion provides the needed support. >> Indeed, this is one of the few cases where the result of >> Unchecked_Conversion is defined by the language (using it in this way will >> work on all Ada compilers). There was some discussion about syntax guides >> that prohibit the use of Unchecked_Conversion, but there is a lot of >> discomfort about changing the language just because some people's style >> guides are broken... > > I know the ARG has considered and discarded the idea, but that doesn't > mean I have to agree with them. > > This is such a common stumbling block that it deserves the extra space > that having 2 distinct attributes ensures. The OP would never had posted > his question had both attributes been in the ARM. > > Over all, I don't feel very strongly about this issue. I haven't needed > access to the underlying representation very often, even when it's > non-standard. > > I'm more interested in areas of inconsistency. Why is exit the only > transfer of control with a when clause? > > -- > Jeff Carter > "Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!" > Dr. Strangelove > 33 > > _______________________________________________ > comp.lang.ada mailing list > comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org > http://www.ada-france.org/mailman/listinfo/comp.lang.ada > >