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,LOTS_OF_MONEY
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a50a3c40267219cc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-16 00:41:29 PST
From: "Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@nospam.baesystems.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <3105e154.0110150021.32ff5426@posting.google.com>
 <9qfdbk$lae$1@wanadoo.fr> <ZjHy7.30103$ev2.37026@www.newsranger.com>
Subject: Re: Why not combine Ada and C++?
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 08:38:35 +0100
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
NNTP-Posting-Host: ed125012.sd.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com
Message-ID: <3bcbe0e0@pull.gecm.com>
X-Trace: 16 Oct 2001 08:25:20 GMT, ed125012.sd.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!newsfeed.icl.net!news.netkonect.net!btnet-peer0!btnet-feed5!btnet!newreader.ukcore.bt.net!pull.gecm.com!ed125012.sd.edinbr.gmav.gecm.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14634
Date: 2001-10-16T08:38:35+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:ZjHy7.30103$ev2.37026@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <9qfdbk$lae$1@wanadoo.fr>, Baugereau says...
> >
> >It may seems stupid, but I think such a language would benefit from C++
> >postfix notation.
> >Object.Method () insteand of Method (Object)
> >
> >Thus you can chain methods calls more clearly (1) and you can benefit
from a
> >better completion from your IDE (2).
> >1) Object.Method1().Method2() instead of Method2 (Method1 (Object))
> >2) Object.Meth* gives only methods that apply to Object whereas Meth*
> >doesn't have this information
>
> <sigh>
> Not only has this issue been discussed to death here multiple times
(answer?
> Like most things in Ada, it was done for a reason.), but it is in the
process of
> being rehashed yet again in another thread. Please go read it before
trying to
> dredge the issue up yet again.
>
> We now return you to your regularly-schdeduled flamewar, already in
progress.

I has understood this 'syntactic sugar' was going to be included in Ada0Y,
anyone
know anything about that?