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=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f51e93dacd9c7fca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-06-20 05:42:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!212.74.64.35!colt.net!news-x2.support.nl!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: status of Ada STL? Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:35:18 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3d0ce154_5@news.bluewin.ch> <3d0e574d_2@news.bluewin.ch> <3d0fb5e8$1_3@news.bluewin.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1024497319 23144 136.170.200.133 (19 Jun 2002 14:35:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jun 2002 14:35:19 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26476 Date: 2002-06-19T14:35:19+00:00 List-Id: I've seen these suggested in this thread and others. I guess I don't like the way it looks and I think there is a problem with it. In C, the "=" operator is a function call with side effects. In Ada the ":=" operator is *not* a function - its a primitive operation of the language. Creating things like "+:=" and "-:=" (and next we'll need some flavor of the "z = (a > b) ? a : b;" operation? :-) starts confusing the concept of assignment as a primitive operation and (possibly user definable) functions. People here have posted wishing Ada would allow them to define a function ":=" just like they can define "=", but it falls apart because ":=" isn't a function. Wouldn't it also fall apart if we started including "+:="? MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message news:ltu0huchrmmjkabapv55qjrrv1firg9gpi@4ax.com... > > I think it would be relatively easy to add some extra keywords like > "+:=", "-:=" etc. They should have no priorities and one need not > predefine them for any type. >