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-Thread: 103376,ace3fca092a457cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Unary operator after binary operator: legal or not? => Compiler
 Error
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:17:54 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1185909474.208950.99070@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
References: <KYtri.46105$Fc.35820@attbi_s21>
   <h%Bri.384485$p47.369566@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
   <KdCri.384503$p47.38112@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
   <wccbqdsk40u.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
   <x5gt38t82erv.18bpz9z12rz3q.dlg@40tude.net>
   <wccy7gwa7sh.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
   <1185901323.18398.4.camel@kartoffel>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1185909478 5485 127.0.0.1 (31 Jul 2007 19:17:58
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:17:58 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1185901323.18398.4.camel@kartoffel>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1297
Date: 2007-07-31T12:17:54-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jul 31, 10:02 am, Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh
+bauh...@maps.futureapps.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 11:53 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote:
> > But don't you think:
>
> >     X * -3
>
> > ought to be legal (no user-defined operators in sight)?
>
> You'r kidding, aren't you? Next thing would be
>
>    X *- 3;
>
> Or, can't we have X + -3, please?

I want to be able to say "c = a+++b" like I can in C.

What I can't figure out is, my C compiler accepts "c = a+++b" but it
doesn't
seem to accept "c = a+++++b", which should clearly be equivalent to
c = (a++) + (++b).  Is this a bug in the language, or in my C
compiler?

                 -- Adam