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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham 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: 2003-06-13 05:21:21 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!213.200.246.247!not-for-mail From: Vinzent Hoefler Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:19:51 +0200 Organization: JeLlyFish software Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.200.246.247 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1055506879 18309877 213.200.246.247 (16 [175126]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39098 Date: 2003-06-13T14:19:51+02:00 List-Id: tmoran@acm.org wrote: > Is there any human being who can do a good job proofreading his own >writings? Well, if we talk about normal writing, from time to time I achieve that goal... but every now and then I take a closer look then I always find another typo. :) > It's not a question of what your eyesight + glasses allows >you to see, but of what your brain allows you to notice. Precisely. The brain is a very funny apparatus, and is sometimes very fault-tolerant and/or can easily be tricked by seeing things that aren't really there. This has advantages in reading stuff that is not perfect (skipping typos without having to think about what it really means), but in programming where we try to talk to the supposedly perfect machine it is more than counter-productive. Especially in languages where a misplaced semicolon alone can have very strange effects and the worst: it still compiles. IMO, Ada made a good job in trying to avoid these kind of errors and I see no point in adding such potentially confusing constructs. If someone sees a big advantage in allowing constructs such as |i :=3D + 1 (like it was proposed, IIRC) for efficiency or possible side effect reasons, so be it. I think, this one is quite clearly distinguishable from any other similar construct (and would be more powerful, too). But please beware of concise notations that can definitely confuse a reader... Vinzent. --=20 Parents strongly cautioned -- this posting is intended for mature audiences over 18. It may contain some material that many parents would not find suitable for children and may include intense violence, sexual situations, coarse language and suggestive dialogue.