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: 2003-05-31 09:05:26 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!cyclone.bc.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!chi1.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!peer02.cox.net!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!internal-news-hub.cableinet.net!news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.1.1.2418 Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X From: Bill Findlay Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Message-ID: References: <6a90b886.0305262344.1d558079@posting.google.com> <3ED41344.7090105@spam.com> <3ED46D81.FF62C34F@0.0> <3ED46E07.4340CABC@0.0> <3ED4F3FD.A0EF7079@alfred-hilscher.de> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 17:04:21 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.195.75.181 X-Complaints-To: abuse@blueyonder.co.uk X-Trace: news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk 1054397125 80.195.75.181 (Sat, 31 May 2003 16:05:25 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 16:05:25 GMT Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38221 Date: 2003-05-31T17:04:21+01:00 List-Id: On 31/5/03 16:31, in article bbai5n$6hm@library1.airnews.net, "John R. Strohm" wrote: > Bletch. > Part of the problem is that you insist on the assignment statement paradigm. > The problem with your proposed "idem" construct is that it creates > opportunity for error. > Consider: I := idem + 1; vs. I := item + 1; vs. I := idep + 1; Consider: item := item + 1; vs. item := iter + 1; Why are your examples any more of a problem? Anyway, 'idem' is just a placeholder. The alternative syntaxes I suggested are not subject to these (rather trivial) errors, so I can't take this objection very seriously. > Now consider the equivalent Oberon: INC(I); > The programmer's intention in Oberon is unmistakable. Really? FSVO 'unmistakable' perhaps. Does Oberon make adding 2, multiplying by 10, etc, equally concise and 'unmistakable'? > FURTHERMORE, under your "idem" proposal, the semantic interpretation of the > RHS is *UNKNOWN* until the LHS is parsed and translated. Consider: > p.all.left.all.right.next.refcnt := idem + 1; Why is that a disadvantage? -- Bill-Findlay chez blue-yonder.co.uk ("-" => "")