Re: What would you like in Ada202X?

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:01:48 +0200, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)  
<yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> a écrit:
> Mine:
> […]

Another one, from a Ludovic's quote elsewhere, I agree with (it happaned I  
felt the same)

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...
>> On 16.04.12 20:00, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> ...
>>> Counter example:
>>
>> Only in case of universally quantified propositions. None of my  
>> business.
>> But anyway,
>>
>>>     procedure Leave (When : Time);
>> ...
>> begin
>>    while Now < When loop
>>       delay Step;
>>       Now := Clock;
>>    end loop;
>>    Left (Slot (When)) := Now;  -- NB p.p. of to leave
>> end Leave;
>>
>> I have tried to choose only unspecific or ambiguous nouns.
>> Do you find this to be explaining itself well? Note the "well,"
>> not: possible to understand for the next few moments.
>
> 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.

-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University