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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7eaf9f2597de2259
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-12 03:21:02 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!dispose.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!pipehawk.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: john.mccabe@emrad.com.nospam (John McCabe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: on package naming, should the word "_pkg" be part of it?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 10:20:06 GMT
Organization: Emrad Ltd
Message-ID: <3bc6c312.1669120@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <mailman.1002721517.7620.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <9q25ec0248o@drn.newsguy.com>
 <slrn9sanqm.cb.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <9q421v0bbg@drn.newsguy.com> <slrn9sb4q1.hv.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <9q4a37$npd$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9q4e59018lm@drn.newsguy.com>
 <slrn9sc9g2.578.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <20011011191946.K11745-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <slrn9sdink.b2.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pipehawk.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pipehawk.demon.co.uk:158.152.226.81
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1002882016 nnrp-10:7555 NO-IDENT
 pipehawk.demon.co.uk:158.152.226.81
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14377
Date: 2001-10-12T10:20:06+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 08:45:21 +0000 (UTC), Preben Randhol
<randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:


>Because reading:
>
>   Counter +:= 1;
>   Product *:= 5;

+:= 1 is probably a bad example because you'd expect to be provided
with an increment operator if you started going down that road
however, apart from the amount of typing involved, the advantage of
the pre- and post-increment operators were that it made it easier for
compiler writers to generate efficient code - i.e. it was *extremely*
obvious that you could convert the statement directly into the
underlying machines increment/decrement instruction (if it existed)
rather than having to go on and parse the number you're adding, the do
something different if the value was 1.