Re: U : Unbounded_String := "bla bla bla"; (was: Is the Writing...)

[Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com>]

Robert I. Eachus wrote:

> Alexandre E. Kopilovitch wrote:
>> I recall that there was discussion in Ada-Comment on this issue (in 
>> think in
>> 2002) and the name "@" was proposed (perhaps by Robert Dewar, but I 
>> may be
>> mistaken in that) for those conversions, or for some broader purpose, 
>> I don't
>> remember exactly. I think that if both above conversions will have the 
>> same
>> name then "@" is much better than "+" for them.
> 
> Yes, another proposal in this area that has never made it into the 
> language.  It would not be hard for implementors to define a few "extra" 
> unary and binary operators that programmers could define for specific 
> types.

There was a proposal to use the "pillow" character for this purpose that 
wasn't adopted. This was good, because the pillow became the Euro 
symbol. Personally, if we're going to have such an operator, I like the 
idea of "\". This already has the interpretation that what follows 
should be interpreted differently in many UNIX programs and in C, and 
it's on most people's keyboards. It might also trick C people into 
thinking Ada looks familiar.

-- 
Jeff Carter
"When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely
turned his tail and fled."
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
60