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,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,92c39a3be0a7f17d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-07 14:19:35 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!torn!enews.sgi.com!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!not-for-mail
From: "Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Future with Ada
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 17:12:58 -0500
Organization: Michigan State University
Message-ID: <a68ns5$23nj$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
References: <mailman.1005328653.20306.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <3C7B0B13.3080003@worldnet.att.net> <3C7D1C89.2000803@home.com>
 <mailman.1014918362.4599.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <3C7E7CAD.7070504@mail.com> <3C7FB9D2.D9C6E055@boeing.com>
 <3C81DF1F.9000503@mail.com> <a5tmpv$aek$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
 <3C83A112.6080302@mail.com> <3C84223C.A356F466@adaworks.com>
 <3C853A04.34826F39@despammed.com> <a63fda$er$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <a65gj5$n73$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <a65jhi$112$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <dcfe911f.0203071252.582e0401@posting.google.com>
Reply-To: "Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: arctic.cse.msu.edu
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20918
Date: 2002-03-07T17:12:58-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Kevin Cline" <kcline@optelnow.net> wrote in message
news:dcfe911f.0203071252.582e0401@posting.google.com...

> I used to happily program this way until I realized people
> (including me, after a few weeks)
> trying to read my code were drowning in details.  Now I limit
> myself to one level of nesting per function, unless some
> performance analysis proves the function call overhead is too great.
>
> It's true that the complexity has to be somewhere, but it's not necessary
> nor desirable that it all be in one place.

> I find it much easier to understand five ten-line functions
> than to understand one fifty-line function.

If you had read the post you are replying to carefully, you would have
realized that the Marin is not advocating a practice that requires you to
always favor using deeply nested if statements.  He is stating that there
are cases in which using nested if statements is the most appropriate
solution.

You seem to be stating that there is never a case is which nested ifs are
appropriate (barring speed constraints).  I find this claim very difficult
to believe.  Is this the claim you really want to be making?

-CRM