Re: "Subtract C, add Ada"

[nebbe@lglsun.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe)]

In article <lawnm.33.00146988@leeds.ac.uk>, lawnm@leeds.ac.uk (N. Mellor) writes:
|> 
|> This seems a valid point to me, particularly because += 
|> simplifies and clarifies expressions, particularly complex ones. I 
|> don't think there'd be much disagreement over this one, for example:
|> 
|> foo( bar( zot( element + 1))) = foo( bar(zot( element + 1))) + 1;
|> 
|> foo( bar( zot(element + 1))) += 1;
|> 
|> The second clearly saves on mistakes and makes the whole line more readable. 
|> To check the first, you need to do a mechanical, lexeme by lexeme comparison 
|> of the two array references to check that they're the same-- not a great score 
|> in the readability stakes. This is a clear example of C shorthand being 
|> superior, in some situations, in some respects, to Ada's straightforwardness. 
|> It isn't the whole story, of course.

For problems like this I would rename the foo term:

  declare
    Following_Element : Integer renames foo( bar( zot( element + 1 )));
  begin
    if Following_Element < Limit then
      Following_Element := Following_Element + 1;
    else
      Following_Element := Following_Element + 10;
    end if;
  end;

I don't really see the benefit of operators like += in a language.

As an aside to no one in particular if you find you have lots of
complicated terms like this in your code you should take it as a
hint that there might be a problem with the design.

Robb Nebbe