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: 2003-06-03 08:32:36 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X Date: 3 Jun 2003 10:32:34 -0500 Organization: Berbee Information Networks Corporation 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> <6vWcnTWjF83bD0qjXTWcpA@gbronline.com> In article , Lutz Donnerhacke writes: > * Preben Randhol wrote: >> Lutz Donnerhacke wrote: >>> Please to instantiate it for every countable type A, you use and any >>> universal_integer B. Thank you. >> >> Ok I can agree. But at least I would rather have >> >> A :=+ B >> or >> A +:= B >> >> whichever is more clear. > > It's more clear, because you know this limited idiom from an other language. I don't. Is that other language a prerequisite to learning Ada ?