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,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,10444cff97404845
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: C like op= proposal
Date: 1999/08/18
Message-ID: <7pecjk$std$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 514190612
References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908151023060.10801-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <m3d7wosq6h.fsf@vault84.infomatch.bc.ca>
 <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908152124300.7953-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <37B7D172.DCE02FFA@Maths.UniNe.CH> <87emh2l218.fsf@antinea.enst.fr>
 <m3u2pyutzu.fsf@fred.muc.de> <7pd6th$2qj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908172116110.25744-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x33.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Aug 18 13:31:32 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-08-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article
<Pine.BSF.4.10.9908172116110.25744-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
  Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> Yes, but Algol-68 didn't have a pseudo-variable for
representing the left
> hand side, and I haven't seen this approach discussed here. If
it was,
> please give a pointer of some kind to the thread.

The pseudo-variable proposal seems entirely horrible to me, and
indeed was not discussed at all. I can see all kinds of abuse
and very little gain from this syntactic vinegar :-)

The idea of the evaluation of the right hand side being tied
in semantically to the evaluation of the left hand side like
this seems quite nasty to me, a real confusion in the
fundamental semantics of assignment. Right now the semantics
attributes of assignment are purely inherited, and you really
want to keep things this way.

Maybe I missed something, but I did not see any significant
support for this particular notion, the discussion was almost
all about the much cleaner (though still fraught with
problems)+= type notation.

I consider a renaming to be much cleaner for a reader than
the use of your pseudo-variable (the latter is just syntactic
sugar/vinegar for the former presumably???)


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.