Re: best way to handle long strings!?

["AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz>]

"Robert Dewar" <dewar@gnat.com> wrote in message
news:5ee5b646.0208181653.5e16fc05@posting.google.com...
> "AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<1oF79.6034$hk3.1116470@news.xtra.co.nz>...
> > "Jacob Sparre Andersen" <sparre@nbi.dk> wrote in message
> > news:3D5D0D64.9070601@nbi.dk...
> >
> > > If you
> > > are going to edit Ada source code, which is line based
> >
> > Pardon me? Ada "line based" ?
>
>
> I think it is fair to call Ada line based
>
> Pragmatically, of course Ada sources are files of lines.

Currently, yes. But if someone was to write
an Ada compiler for a paper-tape based machine
with no concept of a line break even? Would that
compiler stop being Ada?

>
> The standard talks of line breaks, and suggests laying
> out the source in a definite line oriented manner.
>
> Furthermore, RM 2.2(2) says
>
>   The text of a compilation is divided into lines.
>

However, the 2.2(1) says:
"The text of each compilation is a sequence of separate
lexical elements. Each lexical element is formed from a
sequence of characters, and is either a delimiter, an identifier,
a reserved word, a numeric_literal, a character_literal,
a string_literal, or a comment. The meaning of a program
depends only on the particular sequences of lexical
elements ..."

Also, the 2.2(2) goes on to add (after your quote) that
"representation for an end of line is implementation
defined". I'm not too sure about that one, but does it mean
that an implementation is allowed to *not* represent
the EOL at all, provided it has no problem compiling
the result?

> So I think the Pardon me? here is quite uncalled for :-)

Sorry, I didn't mean it in any sort of offensive meaning.
Just an expression of my personal surprise (for which
I beg your pardon :-)