From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b5ab7c96b188b59e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-13 09:53:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!207.35.177.252!nf3.bellglobal.com!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: The "()" operator revisited. References: <4003EEEC.40106@noplace.com> In-Reply-To: <4003EEEC.40106@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <%1WMb.25$3f4.77748@news20.bellglobal.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:38:52 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.223.163 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1074015483 198.96.223.163 (Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:38:03 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:38:03 EST Organization: Bell Sympatico Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4372 Date: 2004-01-13T12:38:52-05:00 List-Id: 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