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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5486a6bc39241084 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-12 03:32:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!skynet.be!skynet.be!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!crushed.velvet.net!aidan From: aidan@velvet.net (Aidan Skinner) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Questions on implementations and specs Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:31:33 GMT Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: crushed.velvet.net X-NNTP-Posting-Host: crushed.velvet.net:62.49.231.23 X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1002882693 nnrp-07:23262 NO-IDENT crushed.velvet.net:62.49.231.23 X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.0 (OpenBSD) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14378 Date: 2001-10-12T10:31:33+00:00 List-Id: On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 18:03:41 +0100, chris.danx wrote in : > documented). I was under the impression that the programmer should not need > to look at the implementation *in most cases* (of course there are cases > when we do need to look at the implementation). This is one of the areas where I like Java over Ada. The raises statement and it's enforcement by the compiler are, IMO, very very useful. Being able to see clearly what each method/function/procedure can generate is a great help, although they should be documented by the package spec, it's not always... I also like the try/catch statements, but I'm happy to live without those... - Aidan -- http://www.velvet.net/~aidan/ aidan@velvet.net No Fear