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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a9bab26b6fe54a36
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Pondering what rationale behind record type
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: 
 <e49186b6-9c80-4788-a64f-dd9aba151f02@u26g2000vby.googlegroups.com>
 <90148303-4dc4-4c05-882f-88dd69a95494@z13g2000prk.googlegroups.com>
 <92quueFnsfU1@mid.individual.net> <vpiu4ewfl8vf.1np1y27so5jtb.dlg@40tude.net>
 <defadb27-a92e-43a4-ae34-b399ee84e266@d28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
 <4dc864b9$0$6890$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <srmjrvuvt6co.1salemwyup26.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4dc90f7a$0$7659$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <11dlfbvj00hru$.7zkw6im0a7gj$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4dc92d14$0$6776$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <14o3gst7h97px$.g6k9bn5b3p4q$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <9543fcbd-9035-45d3-8a5b-45592f927685@w10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <ci3lz2rpjwjf$.15yccznaasoyg.dlg@40tude.net>
 <8992c749-fae9-44cb-be6e-d3f8a592ee1a@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 10:12:04 +0200
Message-ID: <xvucnfbk1g2p.4jgpmlm1u1hu.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 May 2011 10:12:05 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: bc64541b.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=07fKWSPZV9BX36K@\WTHGJMcF=Q^Z^V3H4Fo<]lROoRA8kF<OcfhCOKT`HEQ_c?<<B[6LHn;2LCVN7enW;^6ZC`D\`mfM[68DCC8g2@JG1fYDA
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:20288
Date: 2011-05-19T10:12:05+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 18 May 2011 15:55:03 -0700 (PDT), Shark8 wrote:

> One of the reasons that I'm forced to use if-statements in the cases for
> the various constructs is because some of them are dependent on state:
> Strings, for example are delimited with parentheses, BUT may contain
> balanced pairs or be escaped out.
> 
> So, (Here we are (nowhere).) is equal to the Ada String "Here we are
> (nowhere)."
> A quick/easy "go to the next closing paren" will produce incorrect
> results,
> just as it would in the string (:/)) which is equal the Ada String
> ":)".

I see, I likely would do this differently as well. Either brackets are
parts of an expression to be evaluated later or a part of a literal
expression handled by a recursively descend part (i.e. in a physically
different case-statement).

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de