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,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,10444cff97404845
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Tarjei T. Jensen" <tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.com>
Subject: Re: C like op= proposal
Date: 1999/08/19
Message-ID: <37BBA5E1.13FBF70E@kvaerner.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 514580556
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7pefco$v7o$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <Pine.SUN.3.91-FP.990818113007.5192A-100000@cap1.capaccess.org>
 <yeck8qsev4d.fsf@king.cts.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Kvaerner Oil & Gas
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-08-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Keith Thompson wrote:
> I'm well aware that there's little or no chance of this being added to
> some future version of Ada (which makes this whole thread somewhat
> off-topic, I suppose).  I'm just saying that I like the idea, and I
> wouldn't mind seeing it in some future language.

So would I. I don't care much for [+-*/]= as I too think it is ugly.
However using @ or a functional equivalent seems to be worthwhile. It
may make some code much more readable than it would otherwise be. I
don't know if safety critical applications would want to use it, but it
would be simple to expand the @s before using the source.

So count me in on those who prefer a := @ + 1; over a += 1;

Greetings,