From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Map iteration and modification
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 22:46:59 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <unij2f$1t37f$1@dont-email.me>
References: <umjukd$9sp$1@rasp.pasdenom.info> <umjuvc$9sp$2@rasp.pasdenom.info> <umk6ds$e9hc$1@dont-email.me> <umldsq$na79$1@dont-email.me> <umm4r5$ppag$1@dont-email.me> <umogc5$173bb$1@dont-email.me> <umotm2$18lqm$1@dont-email.me> <un2jeb$330jr$1@dont-email.me> <un3bg9$35mhv$1@dont-email.me> <un5asc$3hsqb$1@dont-email.me> <un64o3$3krch$1@dont-email.me> <un7nqe$3rs9n$1@dont-email.me> <un8qgm$50cc$1@dont-email.me> <unav7n$haul$1@dont-email.me> <uneel2$12ufr$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 04:46:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="826b19da86e4de95d23aec4712716b3a";
	logging-data="2002159"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+CGWF4uvHrA2Ut5T2PBvSod7nYSEYWkds="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cE/++3DhvfAYwNrq7lrpwrrFO6U=
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.7246
X-Priority: 3
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:65972
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Jeffrey R.Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.acm.org.not> wrote in message 
news:uneel2$12ufr$1@dont-email.me...
...
> For the 9X and 0X revisions I suggested adding "when <condition>" to 
> return and raise statements, similar to its use on exit statements. This 
> was rejected because the language already has a way to accomplish this: if 
> statements.

I don't recall ever seriously considering this (might just my memory getting 
old). I suspect that didn't get rejected so much as not making the cut as 
important enough. We do try to limit the size of what gets added, not just 
adding everyone's favorite feature.

I'd guess that "raise Foo when Something" would get rejected now as it would 
be confusing with "raise Foo with Something" which means something very 
different. (At least the types of "Something" are different in these two.) 
OTOH, we added "when condition" to loops (which I thought was unnecessary, 
but I lost that), so argubly it would be consistent to add it to other 
statements and expressions as well. Perhaps you should raise it again on the 
Github.

                         Randy.




>
> Given that one can do
>
> declare
>    V : T renames Very_Long_Identifier;
> begin
>    V := V - 23;
> end;
>
> it seems that @ should also have been rejected. Probably more so, since @ 
> is completely new syntax rather than reusing existing syntax on some 
> additional statements. What is the justification of accepting @ while 
> still rejecting the other?
>
> -- 
> Jeff Carter
> "If I could find a sheriff who so offends the citizens of Rock
> Ridge that his very appearance would drive them out of town ...
> but where would I find such a man? Why am I asking you?"
> Blazing Saddles
> 37
>