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: 103376,99e73f65ea2533b9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Vinzent Hoefler <nntp-2008-08@t-domaingrabbing.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: and then... (a curiosity)
Date: 5 Sep 2008 06:41:04 GMT
Message-ID: <6ic2k0Fpp9enU1@mid.individual.net>
References: 
 <18b41828-bda4-4484-8884-ad62ce1c831d@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
	<57qdnfULQ9tzKCHVnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@comcast.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0809020925030.9968@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de>
	<48bd0003$1@news.post.ch>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0809021210200.10279@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de>
	<uej40hg9g.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0809040835270.21815@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de>
	<48bf90bf$0$30032$dbd4d001@news.euronet.nl>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0809041404570.22581@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de>
	<48bffbb7$0$74166$dbd49001@news.euronet.nl>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0809042106410.25707@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0809042139540.26030@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de>
	<48c03fd1$0$12199$dbd4f001@news.euronet.nl>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0809050933190.27848@medsec1.medien.uni-weimar.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net wMgwe2vfmu/2wIqYPc2hlQvCyyKLjepIJ+re/WnVI5vKLyaNsU
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZEEsloHw8wCQCXVHfR/5x06+/f0=
User-Agent: KCNews/0.98b
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7667
Date: 2008-09-05T06:41:04+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 09:44:33 +0200, stefan-lucks wrote:

> I didn't invent or re-invent anything. I just pointed out that the fact 
> that "and then" does, what "and" should do. This is un-intiutive and 
> error-prone.

Well, for me the "and" disguising as "and then" would be unintuitive.
I had the same issues, as you seem to have now, adjusting to C's
IMO "illogical" statements like "if ((NULL != p) && (p->something))"
suddenly being totally valid.

So, the "intuition" obviously depends on the observer. ;)


Vinzent.