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: 2003-06-10 02:13:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!uio.no!193.75.75.20.MISMATCH!news.eunet.no!dax.net!juliett.dax.net!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X References: <6a90b886.0305262344.1d558079@posting.google.com> <3EDCBDF4.1050900@attbi.com> From: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen Message-ID: <7vof162t4b.fsf@vlinux.voxelvision.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 09:12:53 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.216.12.150 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tele2.no X-Trace: juliett.dax.net 1055236373 193.216.12.150 (Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:12:53 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 11:12:53 MET DST Organization: Tele2 Norway AS Public Access Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38889 Date: 2003-06-10T09:12:53+00:00 List-Id: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes: > Robert A Duff wrote in message news:... > > 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes: > > > > > Stephen Leake wrote in message news:... > > > You seem to be going around in circles here. The whole idea was that A > > > += B can avoid the temporary matrix and the extra copy operation. > > > That's how it works in C++. Without that benefit, yes you might as > > > well just use A := A + B. > > > > This is all speculation, since Ada does not *have* a +:= operator. > > It seems to me that if it did, the semantics should be identical to > > any other procedure call with two parameters (one 'in out', and one > > 'in'). It should *not* be similar to a *function* call, and should not > > return a result. If all that were true, then of course +:= would be > > exactly as efficient as Matrix_Add. > > I agree: "+=" would be a procedure, and "+" would be (is) a function. > > This brings us full circle, back to the question of aesthetics. I say > that > > A += B > > is far more elegant AND readable than > > Matrix_Add ( Into=>A, From=>B ) > > If you prefer the latter abomination, I think you're nuts. You haven't done much LISP programming, I see :-) -- Ole-Hj. Kristensen ****************************************************************************** * You cannot consistently believe this sentence. ******************************************************************************