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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	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: 2003-06-24 03:07:46 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "AG" <ang@xtra.co.nz>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <uhe6zw201.fsf@nasa.gov>
 <bebbba07.0306101640.19178e81@posting.google.com>
 <3EE7CC70.E1FD3A67@adaworks.com>
 <bebbba07.0306121116.33e4741@posting.google.com>
 <bcbu9i$hgu5j$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de> <AwvGa.1228118$F1.143267@sccrnsc04>
 <3EECA772.4B662024@adaworks.com> <hYmHa.6881$Hb.124073@news4.e.nsc.no>
 <BB13C10D.350A%yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <bcl1pu$jscm4$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de>
 <BB13CDB9.3516%yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <e2e5731a.0306180700.61b2575f@posting.google.com>
 <e2e5731a.0306191037.3addbae5@posting.google.com>
Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <RpVJa.47832$JA5.837234@news.xtra.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:08:49 +1200
NNTP-Posting-Host: 219.88.60.93
X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz
X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 1056449265 219.88.60.93 (Tue,
 24 Jun 2003 22:07:45 NZST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:07:45 NZST
Organization: Xtra
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39645
Date: 2003-06-24T22:08:49+12:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Alexander Kopilovitch" <aek@vib.usr.pu.ru> wrote in message
news:e2e5731a.0306191037.3addbae5@posting.google.com...

> In addition to yesterday's "~name or ~~" proposal, here is yet another
one:
> use triplet (*) - asterisk inside round brackets. This compound symbol is
> quite different from others, and nicely associates with "focus".
>
>   X := (*) + A;
>
>   X := (*) + (*);

As written, I don't see how is it better
than just using X + A and X + X.
After all those forms actually *save*
keystrokes compared to the triplet
variants.

Seriously though, what's the (*) & X
semantics?  Is X allowed to be a function
returning some access value? If so, will
(*) require second call to the function
(with potentially different result) or not?