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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: a new language, designed for safety !
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:25:21 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <1dq4luqfsvaff.1gwqr3exbto0y$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <lmj8s6$hhp$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <1402308235.2520.153.camel@pascal.home.net> <85ioo9yukk.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <e41c64cc-af26-4971-9db3-aec0fb4f5893@googlegroups.com>
 <9qednXOIGNDuLQXORVn_vwA@giganews.com>
 <1872904482424209024.314619laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org>
 <GtudnWClAsEmmQTORVn_vwA@giganews.com>
 <e3b1435a-499a-43b1-a7b7-6ee03167183f@googlegroups.com>
 <wrKdnYYvD8xzEATORVn_vwA@giganews.com>
 <810507a4-427e-42bb-a468-e5939a4470db@googlegroups.com>
 <lnd8l7$h89$1@dont-email.me> <9qbfr6yf0gnb.182y1qs9eigz4$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <b0db3175-85d4-4c66-a6de-9fd68de7e5b3@googlegroups.com>
 <1lk5etrvv7sy2$.p7h015lw2pmn$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <539d6faa$0$6670$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: AuYlnUSfTZrfhAkRjyySpQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:20317
Date: 2014-06-15T14:25:21+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:04:26 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 15/06/14 08:52, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>>> >Oh, dynamic memory is the same in this aspect. Should it be in the
>>> >language or in the library?
>> In the library. Ada 95 introduced storage pools for exactly this purpose.
> 
> But moving (backing) operators to (by) the library should not entail
> abandoning special  syntax, I would hope?

Another language design principle reads: any operator shall be
implementable by a user-defined subprogram.

Operator is only syntax sugar. There is nothing wrong in having an unary
prefix operator "new" along with "abs", "+", "-", except for reserving the
keyword "new", of course.

> Imagine a programmer wishing to express a typical pattern such as
> 
>    "Find A in B!"

No problem:

find - prefix unary operation
A - operand
in - infix operation
B - operand
! - postfix unary operation

If you are ready to make "find" reserved and allow "!" there would be no
syntax problem. "in" is already an infix operation in Ada.

> Operators in (syntactical) context will add readability because
> the pattern is clear, not because one knows some names.

No, they are ambiguous if not reserved keywords *and* if association
priorities are unset.

You need to reduce syntax into non-existence, like Forth does, in order to
have that. And nobody sane would claim Forth readable.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de