Re: fyi, very interesting Ada paper OOP vs. Readability

[Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>]

On 12-05-30 04:09 , BrianG wrote:
> On 05/11/2012 08:37 PM, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>> Ada should have had a "conversion" operator ("#" has been proposed), and
>> clearly Ada.Strings.Unbounded should use it. But that gets shot down
>> every
>> time it is proposed (and it has been proposed for every language revision
>> other than Ada 2012); mainly because a minority think that "+" is
>> perfectly
>> good for that. And another minority think that uses "+" on non-numeric
>> types
>> is *disgusting*, so we can never get the operators added to packages. A
>> perfect impasse.
>>
>> Randy.
> Why not unary "&", isn't that closer to the existing syntax?
>

Please, not "&", that would make calls look too much like calls in C 
with pointer parameters. "&" being the C "address-of" operator. "&" is 
also a large glyph, as tall as upper-case letters, making a following 
identifier harder to recognize at a glance. How about "~"? Meaning, I 
want "approximately" this value, but converted as necessary.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .