Re: status of Ada STL?

["chris.danx" <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com>]

"Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:bebbba07.0206162248.45b6174e@posting.google.com...
> Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org> wrote in message
news:<3D0D4274.6C5E02F9@acm.org>...
>
> > Certainly ":=" is better than "=" for assignment, and replacing "=" with
> > "==" for equality is just stupid. But I've thought for decades that the
> > assignment symbol should not contain the "=" character at all. "<-"
> > would probably be good.
>
> Certainly "=" is better than ":=" for assignment,

"=" implies stateful, assignment is stateful hence using "=" for stateful
transitions is confusing if not wrong (let's not go into C and why it has
"=" for assignment, that's done, in the past, over with!  The issue here is
whether Ada should have "=" for assignment).

Try fp for a while and see that "something is something else" is different
from saying "something becomes something else".


> but if you don't
> think so, my proposal WOULD NOT STOP YOU FROM USING :=. LET ME REPEAT:
> MY PROPOSAL WOULD NOT STOP YOU FROM USING := FOR ASSINGMENT.
>
> HELLO? AM I GETTING THROUGH TO ANYONE OUT THERE?

NOPE COS' YOU'RE SHOUTING AT EVERYONE AND YOUR PROPOSAL HAS NO BENEFITS TO
THE ADA COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.

As I said before the best way to support Ada is to develop software in it,
and for it.  Adas' biggest problem is ppl moaning that it's not as popular
as this language or that language and thinking up ways of making it more
popular, instead of getting on with writing software and supporting it in
that way.  After all the more software you put out there, the more ppl get
to see what you can do with Ada and see it's benefits.


Chris