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-Thread: 103376,525be57bd7f45978 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:19:59 +0100 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050116) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada syntax patents References: <421b581b$0$13221$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net> <1109258397.763243.44860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <7mcv5t6spgbg$.msxe85akfpbi$.dlg@40tude.net> In-Reply-To: <7mcv5t6spgbg$.msxe85akfpbi$.dlg@40tude.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <421e52e9$0$24934$9b4e6d93@newsread2.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Feb 2005 23:19:21 MET NNTP-Posting-Host: af9d313c.newsread2.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=TTP]RVoQjoDUhhl_USDNiOQ5U85hF6f;DjW\KbG]kaMHea\9g\;7NmEDbFX1O=ZfZO:n9G[MMWD:DVZ\I;gVg^BA X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8489 Date: 2005-02-24T23:19:21+01:00 List-Id: Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On 24 Feb 2005 13:16:09 -0600, Larry Kilgallen wrote: > > >>The cited page says: >> >> A system, method and computer-readable medium support the use >> of a single operator that allows a comparison of two variables >> to determine if the two variables point to the same location >> in memory. >> >>which does not seem to me the same as a comparison operator. > > > Does X'Address = Y'Address qualify? By analogy, the sentence that mentions "ungrammatical" can easily be "ported" to an Ada construct. if not (A in B) then can be written if A not in B then One Ada compiler maker is allowed to write a translator without worrying about what another compiler maker is doing about the translation of the second form. Right? Programmers can write the second if statement and deliver their code. They needn't worry about another programmer's Ada compiler, if it is an Ada compiler. There is no patent on "not in" (AFAIK). The code is portable between programmers, between projects, and between compilers. This is of advantage to everyone. You can choose your compiler, "not in" is no problem, neither a suing problem, nor a translation problem, nor a maintenance problem. No FUD. The patent potentially applies to BASIC compilers only, if at all. (I don't know what clever tricks the patent lawyers can play, the operator being present in Algol 68 (as per Charles Lindsey), and probably also being present in Simula 67 (according to Meyer's OOSC2).) Still this example demonstrates the mechanism employed by one company in trying to get hold of a useful language construct, with unpleasant consequences. One consequence would be that a choice is likely gone for everyone. Another is that programs could become less portable. A third is increased market control. In particular, the competition (e.g. REAL Software) might face a problem that has nothing to do with their capabilities as compiler writers. Nothing to do with price, as well. The linked page (in another post) about the Realbasic compiler explains. Georg Bauhaus