Re: Localized Variable Declaration

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>]

Michael Bode <m.g.bode@web.de> writes:

> dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
> 
> > So let's correct that and write something that makes the
> > original point (which was valid and appropriately stated)
> > with correct code in good style:
> > 
> > > procedure .... is
> > > begin
> > >   Put_Line("write two numbers");
> > >   declare
> > >     a : constant Integer := Read (...);
> > >     b : constant Integer := Read (...);
> > >     c : constant Float := Float (a) * Float (b) * 42.42;
> > >   begin
> > >     Put_Line ("answer = " & Float'Image (c));
> > >   end;
> > > end ....;
> 
> Could someone please help a poor Ada beginner and tell me when to
> leave a blank between a function name and its parameter list and when
> not? I personally find the above Put_Line("write two number"); more
> readable than Float := Float (a) * Float (b) * 42.42; because I think
> of a function and its parameters as a unity, but I've seen the blanks
> in textbooks quite often. OTHO "Ada Quality and Style" favors the
> Put_Line(...)

There is no universal agreement on this.  I suspect Robert meant to
put a blank after Put_Line, above, because that's the GNAT style.

The Ada RM style is not to put a blank before the "(".  The GNAT style
is to put in that blank.  I find the GNAT style ugly, particularly when
there's a selected component:

    ... Get_Something(X, Y).Some_Component ...

in the GNAT style would be:

    ... Get_Something (X, Y).Some_Component ...

which makes it look like ".Some_Component" is being applied to "(X, Y)",
whereas it is actually being applied to "Get_Something(X, Y)".

Not a big deal.  ;-)

> PS: No Holy War intended.

;-)  These kinds of trivialities are what holy wars are made of!

- Bob