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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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: 2003-06-21 20:51:42 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.gbronline.com!news.gbronline.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:51:40 -0500
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 22:52:28 -0500
From: Wesley Groleau <wesgroleau@despammed.com>
Reply-To: wesgroleau@despammed.com
Organization: Ain't no organization here!
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
 rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030425
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, es-mx, pt-br, fr-ca
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X
References: <bebbba07.0306191734.7e41e796@posting.google.com>
 <v66cnYP9G6Q58G-jXTWJhQ@gbronline.com> <bd1jer$scb@library1.airnews.net>
In-Reply-To: <bd1jer$scb@library1.airnews.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <YOOdnfvDLLxQumijXTWJgA@gbronline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.117.18.20
X-Trace: 
 sv3-3cDbkJHSpqn0tY+0bJ6I///ePU+3Ac67D7bkXNAUbQYE0zDcjSOxfUHsLEafgudhfpbVSJAsUNFychI!RGjjC/mF57FNNUaZXhNVbpQnC92kLgCbi/eI3R6Wi4e+I+b5cSzCvn8KqehQelgAl2+RkgGPSEFc!d/v+
X-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.1
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39553
Date: 2003-06-21T22:52:28-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

John R. Strohm wrote:
>>However, if we allow "+" to be a procedure, and allow
>>it to be called with the syntax
>>
>>    i + 1;
>>
>>then we would have to decide whether to allow
>>
>>    i + j + 1;
>>
>>and if so, how to define its meaning.
> 
> This would seem to be an OUTSTANDING argument AGAINST the whole idea.

Well, I think I've said all along I'm opposed,
but _IF_ it seemed like the consensus was to
add the first construct into the language, I would
oppose the second.

Where do you draw the line?

Once you allow

    Call_something;
    Thing_To_Be_Incremented + Increment;
    Call_Something_Else;

Then it's harder to argue against allowing

    Target + Addend + Other_Addend;

Then when that gets in, why not

    A + B * C;

and on and on and on ....