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 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: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: C like op= proposal Date: 1999/08/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 515526319 References: <37B7D172.DCE02FFA@Maths.UniNe.CH> <87emh2l218.fsf@antinea.enst.fr> <7pd6th$2qj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7pecjk$std$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7pg9pr$aih$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 935252592 216 bpr@206.184.139.136 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-08-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Robert Dewar wrote: > In article > , > Brian Rogoff wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Robert Dewar wrote: > > > 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 :-) > > > > ROTFL! > > > > That little expression (syntactic vinegar) was the high point > of a bland > > day. Is that an original Dewarism? > > no, no, that's as old as programming languages as far as I know, > certainly it dates back to the 60's .. :-) but i appreciate the > ROTFL, anything to brighten up an otherwise dull day! Well, I guess I'm showing my age! I remember certain expressions like "the ratchet effect" (you can never remove language features) and LALR parser generators as "all that stuff done in the 70's to make parsers slow" as coming from you, don't tell me they're ancient too? To bring it back on topic, the "op:=" like +:= is not just in Algol-68, which is stagnant, but also used in Icon and its successor. So there are living languages using this "vampire" notation :-) -- Brian