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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!husc6!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!tikal!slovax!jeff
From: jeff@slovax.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Re: Overloading "and"
Message-ID: <206@slovax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Nov-86 13:12:00 EST
Article-I.D.: slovax.206
Posted: Wed Nov 12 13:12:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Nov-86 05:28:31 EST
References: <4700083@ada-uts>
Organization: R & D Associates., Tacoma, WA
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> Nf-ID: #R:ucbvax.berkeley.edu:-114600:ada-uts:4700083:000:555
> Nf-From: ada-uts!stt    Nov  6 10:47:00 1986
> 
> 
> It is illegal to overload "and then" and "or else" (as these
> are "operations" but not "operators"), but it is
> perfectly legal to overload the logical operators "and,"
> "or," and "xor."
> 
> The only restriction about overloading operators has to
> do with "=" and "/=."  You may not separately overload "/=,"
> and you may only define "=" for limited types, or by renaming
> another "=."   Thanks to generics, you can in fact
> define "=" for any type by doing so in an instantiation
> of a generic passing the type as the actual matching a formal
> limited private type.

Pardon me, no flames intended to the poster, but I just HAD to bring up
a point with such a good example available. I know that somebody somewhere,
with nothing better to do, decided what the "correct" method of punctuating
near (") quotation marks would be. The poster has "correctly" followed the
"rules", and I am not finding any fault with the poster.

My point is this: why put (,) commas and (.) periods, or any other 
punctuation for that matter, within a technical quotation?

       for example:

> perfectly legal to overload the logical operators "and,"
> "or," and "xor."

Am I to assume that the poster is referring to (and,), (or,) and (xor.) ?

> do with "=" and "/=."  You may not separately overload "/=,"
>  ...
> another "=."   Thanks to generics, you can in fact

Likewise, are we looking at (/=.) and (/=,) ?

Context and careful re-reading help the reader to understand what is really
being communicated, but is it REALLY necessary?

I admit, in this particular case, the above assumptions are rediculous.
There are, however, many topics that could be discussed, including a few
languages, where these assumptions would be quite reasonable.

Again, there are absolutely NO FLAMES INTENDED toward the poster, just
FLAMES for the rules.


Thanks for listening.
I feel better now.