Re: proposal for new assignment operators

[Bill Findlay <yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>]

On 26/6/03 03:06, in article
bebbba07.0306251806.5789a018@posting.google.com, "Russ"
<18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote:

> Bill Findlay <yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> Your syntax is *in*compatible with the co-existence of the '=' operator and
>> the ':=' assignment symbol. In your proposal, x :? y,
>> for some operator ?, means: "x is assigned the value of (x ? y)".
>> 
>> I now ask, what does a := b mean when a and b are Boolean?
>> Does it assign (a = b) to a, or does it assign b to a?
> 
> Oh, now I see what you mean. You have an interesting point, but I
> don't think its particularly compelling. The ":=" symbol obviously
> should not be redefined for this special case. So the answer to your
> question is that a := b would assign b to a.
> 
> It's not really an incompatibility; its just that "=" doesn't happen
> to be one of the operators that should have an in-place counterpart.

Is there any better reason for this than expediency?

> It wouldn't be useful anyway.

'=' for Boolean operands is every bit (!) as useful as 'xor'.

> After all, none of the languages with "+=" have "===", do they?

Ah! You think Ada should aspire to the arbitrariness of C in this regard.

Which of Ada's operators do you think should be given these special
privileges, and which should be second-class citizens?

-- 
Bill-Findlay chez blue-yonder.co.uk ("-" => "")