Re: proposal for new assignment operators

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca>]

Russ wrote:
> "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca> wrote in message news:<3EF9CD5F.6030608@cogeco.ca>...
>>Frank J. Lhota wrote:
>>>I would prefer the Icon notation, where the operator prefixes the ":="
>>>assignment symbol, e.g.
>>>
>>>    first +:= margin
>>>    last -:= margin
>>>
>>>    # "||" is the Icon catenation operation, so this adds suffix to the end
>>>of word
>>>    word ||:= suffix
>>>
>>>This fits in rather well with Ada, and poses no problem with division; "/:="
>>>does in-place division, "/=" tests for inequality.
>>
>>For my $0.02 Canadian, all of this fuss is fuss with very
>>little payback. In fact, all it will succeed in doing if
>>it gets accepted (which it won't AFAICS), is obfuscating
>>Ada code a bit more than it used to be. That is one of many
>>reasons it will never get accepted.
> 
> I'd like to know how count :+ 1 is any more obfuscated than count :=
> count + 1. It looks simpler to me. And that applies all the more when
> the variable name is longer. Also, A += B looks a lot cleaner to me
> than Add_Matrix ( Into=>A, From=>B ). Ask any mathematician or MATLAB
> user which they prefer -- to read *or* to write.
...
> As for your arrogant "It ain't goin' to be" attitude, you may be
> right, but if you are, it won't be for any rational reason. It'll just
> be good old fashioned hard-headedness and stubbornness.
> 
> I can only hope that the influentual people behind Ada are more
> open-minded than some of the regulars on this newsgroup. If not, I'm
> afraid some of you regulars are destined to be big fish in an
> ever-shrinking pond.

As to my statement that you call "arrogant", this is simply a
statement as to how I see it panning out. If that is arrogant to
you, then there is nothing more I can say about it. But to use
your line of reasoning, then I guess it would be fair to say that
the statement "you regulars are destined to be big fish in an
ever-shrinking pond" is equally arrogant ;-)

You know, I can be open minded about many things, but there are
just some things in life that are not worth the bother for. To
me at least, this is one of them. Many reasons have been given
already why this is a worthless proposition. There is not a _big_
payback here. That perhaps is one of the biggest reasons it will
not be seriously considered.  It also goes against some of the
standing goals of Ada (readability, for example). But all of this
has been said before.

So I voiced my opinion, and I am going to leave it at that. You
guys can argue this out, but I personally think this is wasting
your time.

(signing off this thread).

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg