Re: proposal for new assignment operators

[kcline17@hotmail.com (Kevin Cline)]

Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<HfU+ONDON25c@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
> In article <bebbba07.0306261008.51e8bc81@posting.google.com>, 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes:
> > Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<3doRhIgUmUYX@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
> >> In article <bebbba07.0306251909.760d7485@posting.google.com>, 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes:
> >> 
> >> > I'd like to know how count :+ 1 is any more obfuscated than count :=
> >> > count + 1.
> >> 
> >> I am beginning to believe you are beyond hope.
> >> 
> >> That construct is totally obscure to someone who has not seen it before.
> >> I can think of nothing in Ada meeting that incredible standard.
> > 
> > Oh, you can't? Go find some programmers who have never seen Ada source
> > code, show them some Ada source code, and ask them if any of it looks
> > "obscure" to them.
> 
> Please specify the Ada syntax elements which you find obscure.

I found the distinction between controlled and uncontrolled types to
be completely obscure and to my mind completely unnecessary,
particularly when compared with C++, where one simply overrides the
assignment operator if desired.

Also the Finalization package seems rather complex, but maybe it has
to be to support garbage collection.  Still, it's much more complex
than the simple idea of a destructor.


 Finalization -- a completely obscure partitioning of the type system
that is peculiar to Ada alone.