Re: Why .ads as well as .adb?

[Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>]

"J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> writes:
[...]
> I don't agree. Yes, Ada is more verbose, but it tells you clearly what
> is a declaration, and what are executable statements. In C/C++ , there
> is this "Oh, this is a statement, let's assume we have left the
> declarations part" that I don't like. Granted, it's a matter of taste.

There is no "declarations part".  C++ allows declarations and statements
to be mixed within a block.  (C does too, since the 1999 standard.)
Declarations and statements are syntactically distinct, so there's no
ambiguity.

    void func() {
        int x;                 // declaration
        x = 42;                // statement
        printf("x = %d\n", x); // statement
        int y = 43;            // declaration
        printf("y = %d\n", y); // statement
    }

That's inside a function definition.  Outside a function definition,
declarations are allowed and statements are not.  And declarations can
involve execution of code (as in Ada).

Yes, it's a matter of taste, and I'm not arguing for one approach over
the other.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */