Re: The "()" operator revisited.

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <warren@ve3wwg.tk>]

Marin David Condic wrote:
> Just off the top of my head, this would probably break a lot of stuff. 
> Currently operators defined with the "" are *infix* operators. The "()" 
> is a Idontknowwhatkindoffix operator - and that's likely to cause all 
> sorts of parser problems. The "():=" procedure is even more bizarre. Its 
> part procedure call and part assignment statement. We've had numerous 
> debates here about why you can't make a user defined assignment 
> statement as an operator (because assignment is not defined as a 
> function) and ...

I am not personally convinced about the need for "()" myself, but
I often wonder about more control over assignment however.  One
example that does exist in ada is the Adjust method in a
controlled type. Not having throught this through deeply (I admit),
I still wonder if it wouldn't be useful to allow control over
the actual assignment operation in a more general way (as an
operator).

Was operator assignment ever considered for Ada? If it was, and shot
down, what were the primary reasons against it?

Just curios.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://ve3wwg.tk