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: 103376,1d321b3a6b8bcab2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-01-25 00:50:22 PST
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!swidir.switch.ch!epflnews!dinews.epfl.ch!lglsun!nebbe
From: nebbe@lglsun.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: "Subtract C, add Ada"
Date: 25 Jan 1995 08:50:22 GMT
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
Sender: nebbe@lglsun3.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe)
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1995Jan25.093721@lglsun.epfl.ch>
References: <3fo2ot$su2@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com> <lawnm.33.00146988@leeds.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lglsun3.epfl.ch
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 1995-01-25T08:50:22+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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