blakemor@software.ORG (Alex Blakemore) (01/17/89)
>>From article <1089@shuksan.UUCP>, by scott@shuksan.UUCP (Scott Moody): >> I for one wouldn't mind procedure parameters and varaiables, >> ala C, but I can see that they go against the non goto rational behind Ada. >Speaking of the non-goto rationale behind Ada, can anyone tell me >why Ada has a goto statement?? (See LRM 5.9...) The Rationale for >the Design of Ada conveniently fails to discuss it. According to John Barnes [Programming in Ada p. 61] "The main reason concerns automatically generated programs ... [to] transliterate (by hand or machine) a program from some other language into Ada" He also points out the syntax was deliberately made to stick out like a sore thumb. <<UGLY_LABEL>> Sounds like a reasonable tradeoff to me. Now if they only bring back the computed goto :-) Alex Blakemore Software Productivity Consortium
wbralick@afit-ab.arpa (William A. Bralick) (01/18/89)
In article <8901170040.AA03554@venera.isi.edu> blakemor@software.ORG (Alex Blakemore) writes: :-) :-) [conserving bandwidth ...] :-) :-) He (Barnes) also points out the syntax was deliberately made :-) to stick out like a sore thumb. <<UGLY_LABEL>> I thought the label was enclosed in double angle brackets ( <<LABEL>> ) because that is how one "quotes" in French. Surrounding a label with quotes seems reasonable -- it may even "surrender." Regards, -- Will Bralick : wbralick@afit-ab.arpa | If we desire to defeat the enemy, Air Force Institute of Technology, | we must proportion our efforts to | his powers of resistance. with disclaimer; use disclaimer; | - Carl von Clauswitz