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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,96ed71365ee11846
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: rogoff@sccm.Stanford.EDU (Brian Rogoff)
Subject: Re: Limitations of Ada
Date: 1996/07/31
Message-ID: <ROGOFF.96Jul31100025@sccm.Stanford.EDU>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 171363842
references: <96072915521064@psavax.pwfl.com> <4tlpfa$cr9@bagan.srce.hr>
organization: /u/rogoff/.organization
reply-to: rogoff@sccm.stanford.edu
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-31T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
   Kazimir commented on alledged limitations of Ada

   4) Small number of operators to overload, see  C++

       Incomprehensible, all operators and subprograms are overloadable in Ada

I expect that what Kazimir meant was something like 

   4) Small number of binary infix (and unary prefix ) operators whose 
      meanings can be assigned by the user.

Overloading is an orthogonal issue; note that Eiffel 3 allows one to define 
brand new infix operators, but does not have overloading. 

This is a legitimate complaint. I have wanted additional operators for image 
processing operations. However, it is not really a "limitation", just a 
tiny syntactic inconvenience. I assume the same reasoning that led to the 
ban on macros (readability and potential for abuse) led to this decision.

-- Brian