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: 2003-06-16 11:20:47 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!213.200.246.247!not-for-mail
From: Vinzent Hoefler <ada.rocks@jlfencey.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:19:15 +0200
Organization: JeLlyFish software
Message-ID: <bcl1pu$jscm4$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de>
References: <uhe6zw201.fsf@nasa.gov>
 <bebbba07.0306092233.2365dbd5@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbebc2b.ht.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <bebbba07.0306101640.19178e81@posting.google.com>
 <3EE7CC70.E1FD3A67@adaworks.com>
 <bebbba07.0306121116.33e4741@posting.google.com>
 <bcbu9i$hgu5j$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de> <AwvGa.1228118$F1.143267@sccrnsc04>
 <3EECA772.4B662024@adaworks.com> <hYmHa.6881$Hb.124073@news4.e.nsc.no>
 <BB13C10D.350A%yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>
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 1055787646 20853444 213.200.246.247 (16 [175126])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39265
Date: 2003-06-16T20:19:15+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Bill Findlay wrote:

>On 16/6/03 18:16, in article hYmHa.6881$Hb.124073@news4.e.nsc.no, =
"Tarjei T.
>Jensen" <tarjei@online.no> wrote:
>
>> Richard Riehle wrote:
>>> If we adopt this syntax, in Ada, we will need to include some rules =
in the
>>> language to enable the compiler to discern a clear  difference =
between
>>> the +=3D and :=3D.   That is, in Ada's current model, we want to =
compiler to
>>> be able to tell us when a construct is a mistake or warn us when it =
will
>>> potentially create an incorrect execution.
>>=20
>> How would you think about
>> i :=3D () +1;
>
>I would think: this looks very error-prone.
>I think any syntax for an "idem" feature should not easily result from a
>simple typographical error in writing a correct expression.

I'd say something similar to the the already proposed (or at least
mentioned) "<>" would be good enough for me.

Or perhaps we should think about a longer one to discourage people to
use it everywhere in their code. ;)


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.