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: 103376,38fc011071df5a27
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-18 11:50:30 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: Brian.Gaffney@myrealbox.com (Brian Gaffney)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X
Date: 18 Jun 2003 11:50:28 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5e9b8c34.0306181050.3c4cc664@posting.google.com>
References: <uhe6zw201.fsf@nasa.gov> <bcbu9i$hgu5j$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de>
 <AwvGa.1228118$F1.143267@sccrnsc04> <3EECA772.4B662024@adaworks.com>
 <hYmHa.6881$Hb.124073@news4.e.nsc.no>
 <BB13C10D.350A%yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <bcl1pu$jscm4$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de>
 <BB13CDB9.3516%yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <bebbba07.0306162156.62f0c216@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbetjlg.ki.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <bebbba07.0306171420.2a6cb3d0@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.244.215.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1055962229 24456 127.0.0.1 (18 Jun 2003 18:50:29
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jun 2003 18:50:29 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39407
Date: 2003-06-18T18:50:29+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote in message news:<bebbba07.0306171420.2a6cb3d0@posting.google.com>...
> Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbetjlg.ki.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>...
> > Russ wrote:
> > > If you really insist that "+=" looks too much like ":=", then I think
> > > ":+=" or some such kludge is the next best thing, but darnit that's
> > > ugly.
> > 
> > Yes it is ugly the way you wrote it, but +:= isn't. Remember that
> > assignment in Ada is := so one shouldn't seperate these two signs.
> > 
> > > I'm trying, but I'm still having trouble seeing "+=" being confused
> > > with ":=".
> > 
> > What about /= ? The problem is that += doesn't make sense in Ada as = is
> > not the assignment syntax := is.
> 
> An interesting idea just popped into my head. We've considered "+="
> and "+:=", but what about ":+"? Check it out:
> 
>     count :+ 1
>     A :+ B
>     var :/ 2.0
> 
> Simple, clear, only two characters, and no conflict with "/=". What do
> you think?

Let me start by saying that I can't believe I'm adding to this thread.
 I really don't see that any of this would be an improvement.

Having said that, let me make my proposal on how to fix this 'problem'
without creating new keywords or operators:  Create procedures such as
the following for the various operators and various types, along with
the existing functions.

   procedure "+" (Left : in out Integer; Right : in Integer);

That way we could have:

   begin
      I := I + 1;
      I + 1;        --equivalent
   end;

{BTW, would that lead to this:  
   procedure "+" (Right : in out Integer);   --the same as i++
?}

Again, let me emphasize that I'm not suggesting this should become
part of Ada!

                   --Brian