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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham 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: 2002-06-16 23:48:51 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: status of Ada STL? Date: 16 Jun 2002 23:48:50 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <3d0ce154_5@news.bluewin.ch> <3D0D4274.6C5E02F9@acm.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1024296530 31689 127.0.0.1 (17 Jun 2002 06:48:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Jun 2002 06:48:50 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:26121 Date: 2002-06-17T06:48:50+00:00 List-Id: Jeffrey Carter wrote in message news:<3D0D4274.6C5E02F9@acm.org>... > Vinzent Hoefler wrote: > > > > Personally I like ":=" much more than "=". Although in Ada there would > > be no possibility to do "if (a = b)" vs. "if (a == b)" like in C, I > > like the slightly mathematically approach of saying "this gives" > > instead of "this is equal" for assignments definitely more. > > Certainly ":=" is better than "=" for assignment, and replacing "=" with > "==" for equality is just stupid. But I've thought for decades that the > assignment symbol should not contain the "=" character at all. "<-" > would probably be good. Certainly "=" is better than ":=" for assignment, but if you don't think so, my proposal WOULD NOT STOP YOU FROM USING :=. LET ME REPEAT: MY PROPOSAL WOULD NOT STOP YOU FROM USING := FOR ASSINGMENT. HELLO? AM I GETTING THROUGH TO ANYONE OUT THERE?