Simon Wright <[email protected]> writes:
> On 7 Feb 2016, at 18:56, Piotr Trojanek <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Simon Wright <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I think the patch should be at line 687 (i.e. in alphabetical
>>> order), and, comparing with the indentation for
>>> private_extension_declaration, private_type_declaration, the
>>> indentation should be to the current level:
>>
>> I agree. Yet with alphabetical order the branch for
>> abstract_subprogram_declaration should be the first one, not the last
>> one, right?
>
> What happened there was that that list of non-terminals originally
> started with subprogram_body, which was in alphabetical order; Stephe
> added abstract_subprogram_declaration &
> expression_function_declaration after the fact.
right; prefering to not duplicate code. We could pull out the case body
as a subprogram and split the cases.
>I suppose we could
> move the entire group to the start of this case statement (line 554).
I kept this at the place "subprogram_body" and "subprogram_declaration"
belongs, because the others are variations on that.
perhaps:
((subprogram_body
subprogram_declaration
subprogram_specification
;; shared code, but out of alphabetical order:
abstract_subprogram_declaration
expression_function_declaration
null_procedure_declaration)
(cl-ecase (wisi-cache-token cache)
(IS
there should also be a cross-reference for the out of order ones, at the
place where they would be in order
> See also full_type_declaration etc.!
yes; same fix.
--
-- Stephe
_______________________________________________
Emacs-ada-mode mailing list
[email protected]
http://host114.hostmonster.com/mailman/listinfo/emacs-ada-mode_stephe-leake.org
