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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c7d533acec91ae16
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Corey Ashford <yeroca@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Question for the folks who designed Ada95
Date: 1999/04/27
Message-ID: <3725F4F1.7B615767@rocketmail.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 471547626
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7g2qu4$ca4$1@usenet.rational.com> <m3r9p6lxrq.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Rational Software
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-04-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Matthew Heaney wrote:
> 
> "Corey Ashford" <yeroca@rocketmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Why didn't Ada95 make a shift operator a first-class
> > operator on modular types.
> 
> See AARM95 B.1 (9.a)

Thanks, I did find that reference after posting, but I found the
explanation lame.  They didn't want to introduce a new
operator syntax and didn't want a function with a name
part of the language definition.
How was the max and min functions handled?  With attributes...
I don't see how this case is really any different.
Perhaps they didn't think of it, or at least didn't address
this possibility in the RM.

- Corey