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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3bf50ede73cff892
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Subject: Re: Operators Questions
Date: 1996/10/31
Message-ID: <55b9mb$kk6@krusty.irvine.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 193626021
references: <3275D478.5952@eurocontrol.fr>
 <mheaney-ya023180003010961903550001@news.ni.net>
 <JSA.96Oct31145913@alexandria>
organization: /z/news/newsctl/organization
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-31T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) writes:
 >In article <mheaney-ya023180003010961903550001@news.ni.net> mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) writes:
 >
 >> Language designers: any reason overloading of "in" is too difficult for
 >> inclusion in the language?  Why can't you do this already?  This exclusion
 >> of the ability to overload "in" seems rather odd and unexpected.
 >
 >It's a reserved word...

So are "and" and "or" . . .

                                -- Adam