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: 103376,38fc011071df5a27
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-03 05:37:19 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: Ideas for Ada 200X
Date: 3 Jun 2003 07:37:17 -0500
Organization: Berbee Information Networks Corporation
Message-ID: <658f9+ORSSRs@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <6a90b886.0305262344.1d558079@posting.google.com>
 <VjOAa.16051$8g5.257873@news2.e.nsc.no> <3ED41344.7090105@spam.com>
 <3ED46D81.FF62C34F@0.0> <3ED46E07.4340CABC@0.0>
 <3ED4F3FD.A0EF7079@alfred-hilscher.de> <xIeBa.1017346$3D1.597085@sccrnsc01>
 <bebbba07.0305292326.75f5fbef@posting.google.com>
 <6vWcnTWjF83bD0qjXTWcpA@gbronline.com>
 <bebbba07.0305311049.753bb8f0@posting.google.com>
 <KvydnZ2dnunHfUej4p2dnA@gbronline.com>
 <bebbba07.0306022127.46f6c998@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbdp1mg.1lk.randhol+abuseOrganization: LJK Software
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1054643802 32634 192.135.80.34 (3 Jun 2003
 12:36:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:36:42 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38465
Date: 2003-06-03T07:37:17-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <slrnbdp59t.583.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>, Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> writes:
> Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
>> The real question is not about optimizing.
>> The real question is about readablility and clear expression.
> 
> Please explain how A plus equals B is clear?
> 
> Add (To => A, Element => B);
> 
> nuff said ;-)

I think Lutz was looking for someone to prove clarity, whereas your
example proves obscurity.