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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, FREEMAIL_REPLY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,54889de51045a215 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-15 07:16:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dmytrylavrov@fsmail.net (Dmytry Lavrov) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: += in ada Date: 15 Oct 2003 07:16:23 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <49cbf610.0310150616.3503a1c4@posting.google.com> References: <3F7316F7.219F@mail.ru> <49cbf610.0310070205.2937e71a@posting.google.com> <49cbf610.0310101231.2358762a@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.248.15.97 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1066227383 11029 127.0.0.1 (15 Oct 2003 14:16:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 14:16:23 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:896 Date: 2003-10-15T07:16:23-07:00 List-Id: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote in message > > > OK, I can see how you could have misunderstand my point here, so let > me clarify. > > I am *not* claiming that augmented assignment operators (":+", ":-", > ":*", ":/") are good *because* 98% of programmers use them. What I am > claiming is that 98% of programmers use them *because* they are a good > idea. I simply can't understand difference. "Because of A,B is good" vs "B is good because of A" In both cases you're referring to A,to "prove" that B is good,right? And A="choise of 98%" ,so you're mean "be with 98%". Main problem that in some languages thare are no difference between "because A, B is good", or "B is good ,because A".I don't know if there are difference in English,and i don't know that ANY language really have difference.In Russian,it's only order of words. Of course,advertisement texts almost always uses "because of A,B is good". > And I have given three good reasons why augmented assignment > operators can enhance both readability and efficiency. I won't go over > them again here because if you don't get it by now you never will. > > > I'm is a beginner in ada,moving from Free Pascal(and also i can code > > in java and c) where(if FP too) += are supported, and I DON'T WANT += > > . > > Even beginners don't want it! > > This is precisely the attitude that bothers me. I spend all kinds of > time carefully explaining why the five most popular programming > languages all have augmented assignment, and all I get back is, "I > don't like it!", " I don't want it!", and "Even beginners don't want > it!" No rational reason given. Hmmm. We are talking about fact that infix procedures are more readable, comparing a:+b with inc(a,b) ,right? What it have to do with efficiency? Yes,math uses infix functions(you're calling it operators) because 'em are SOMETIMES more readable.But math don't like notation a f b I gave reasons,at start of thread: z :juliafractal c; does not seems to be more readable. Problems with :* if a*b<>b*a Problems with :\ when we want a:=c/a Where a X b <> b X a ,we will have problems with :X Main reason why i don't want :+ : less shugar,better language.Remember pascal's "writeln" : you're want to add "mywriteln" with same syntax,but simply can't. And a b c d e f g (mean d(b(a,c),f(e,j))) is not a readable thing. If language already have way to add user-defined infix procedures,":+" is not so bad. > > The only rational reply I have received so far is that augmented > assignment operators are too much effort to implement. Well, they > obviously weren't too much effort for C, C++, Java, Perl, and Python. > It's really too bad that Ada is so strapped for support. That obvously > doesn't bode well for the future of Ada.