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,d2f0af5e440b367f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-26 03:49:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: proposal for new assignment operators Date: 26 Jun 2003 05:49:08 -0500 Organization: LJK Software Message-ID: <3doRhIgUmUYX@eisner.encompasserve.org> References: <3EF9CD5F.6030608@cogeco.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1056624484 10484 192.135.80.34 (26 Jun 2003 10:48:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:48:04 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39769 Date: 2003-06-26T05:49:08-05:00 List-Id: In article , 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes: > I'd like to know how count :+ 1 is any more obfuscated than count := > count + 1. I am beginning to believe you are beyond hope. That construct is totally obscure to someone who has not seen it before. I can think of nothing in Ada meeting that incredible standard.