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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b076e6315fd62dc5
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.201.132 with SMTP id ka4mr1986516pbc.8.1338362942988;
        Wed, 30 May 2012 00:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 pr3ni65140pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!volia.net!news2.volia.net!feed-A.news.volia.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: fyi, very interesting Ada paper OOP vs. Readability
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 09:29:04 +0200
Organization: Tidorum Ltd
Message-ID: <a2m0hsF38oU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <jodq5f$j5f$1@speranza.aioe.org> <jof9dq$c46$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <m2y5p0sfyg.fsf@pushface.org> <jokbc7$k7p$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <jq3vh7$6nh$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: individual.net
 3ZWc0ok3JLqS4eD9ZXJQ9QCipWgqa5pmb/YejF+dJj9JmkNAy78PYFUG0bZ8vf6wrz
Cancel-Lock: sha1:J/piHqBbfLAh3GveIKY86hA5HYw=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
In-Reply-To: <jq3vh7$6nh$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-05-30T09:29:04+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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
       .      @       .