Re: += in ada

["Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net>]

Russ wrote:

> I think "+=" or ":+" should be exactly equivalent to a procedure call.
> Nothing more. Nothing less. A procedure does not return anything, and
> neither should "+=". Sorry if that was not clear, but I really don't
> understand why it wasn't. Did I ever suggest that "+=" should be like
> a C function, with side effects *and* returning a value? I certainly
> don't recall suggesting anything like that. If I had, then your
> objections would have had some merit, but I did not.

I agree, but then why have we had this huge, huge snitfit discussion? 
Change the topic to a desire to be able to have procedures named "+=", 
and you might generate some discussion or you might not.  Again it won't 
happen, but it won't be waving an emotional red flag.

I could probably go back and pick out a dozen posts where you swore that 
it was the assignment side effect that you wanted in Ada, but who cares. 
  Remember, the procedural version will have three assignment 
operations, two of which can be optimized away.  (For Inc(X), assign 
actual to formal, assign new value to formal, return formal to actual.)

-- 
                                                     Robert I. Eachus

"Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the 
goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, 
down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or 
down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair 
of an old motorcycle."  -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle 
Maintenance by Robert Pirsig