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=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_LOCAL_HEX,
	FROM_STARTS_WITH_NUMS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,cae92f92d6a1d4b1
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Vinzent Hoefler" <0439279208b62c95f1880bf0f8776eeb@t-domaingrabbing.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada.Execution_Time
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:17:46 +0100
Message-ID: <op.vno2nwchlzeukk@jellix.jlfencey.com>
References: <ie1ih9$d02$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <ie2v2k$aps$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <ie3gjn$oj$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <4d05e737$0$6980$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <ie66gg$u5h$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net hRoed+QHWC/+x7f/KhObaQ9xgzcOXYQnJN0RDGlgo4fCbQ+SnN
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eKXbm5orrPIg7RCW3hwus1oZ/bI=
User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.63 (Win32)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16894
Date: 2010-12-14T09:17:46+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Randy Brukardt wrote:

> "Georg Bauhaus" <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de> wrote in message
> news:4d05e737$0$6980$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net...
> ...
>> <rant>
>> Some found the explicit null statement to be unusual,
>> bothersome, and confusing in the presence of a pragma.
>> Thus it was dropped by the language designers.
>
> The logic is that you need a "null;" statement when there is nothing in some
> list of statements. A pragma (or label) is not "nothing", so the requirement
> for "null;" is illogical in those cases.

I believe, back in the old days, there was a requirement that the presence or
absence of a pragma shall have no effect on the legality of the program, wasn't
it?

Well, even if it just was that it "shall have no effect on a legal program", I
still wonder why it is so necessary to introduce the possibility to turn an
illegal program (without the null statement) into a legal one merely by adding
some random pragma where a "sequence of statements" was expected. A pragma is
/not/ a statement.

I agree with Georg here, this is an unnecessary change with no apparent use,
it doesn't support neither of the three pillars of the Ada language "safety",
"readability", or "maintainability".


Vinzent.

-- 
Beaten by the odds since 1974.