Re: status of Ada STL?

[18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)]

"chris.danx" <spamoff.danx@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<d%gP8.23130$gm5.4370500@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>...
> "Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:bebbba07.0206162120.3acf4278@posting.google.com...
> > Vinzent Hoefler <JeLlyFish.software@gmx.net> wrote in message
>  news:<3d0ce154_5@news.bluewin.ch>...
> > > 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote:
> > >
> > > >Yes, it IS still essentially Ada, because you can still use standard
> > > >Ada compilers. A simple pre-processor could convert the cleaner
> > > >dialect to standard Ada 95, and ANYONE WHO WANTS TO CONTINUE TO USE
> > > >STANDARD ADA 95 COULD CONTINUE TO DO SO.
> > >
> > > Mmh. How do you convert a "/=" construct then?
> >
> > x /= y -- new syntax
> > x := x / y; -- old syntax
> 
>   x not equal to y
> = x := x / y;
> 
> How long have you been programming in Ada?  The '/=' construct should be
> known to you if you've been programming for any length of time.

I'm an experienced aerospace engineer with good programming
experience, but I am new to Ada. That's why I think I can see some of
the blemishes of Ada more clearly than jaded Ada programmers. Thanks
for pointing out the problem with "/=". I guess I'll have to use "!="
instead. No big deal.

By the way, it's too bad that Ada wasted "/=" on "not equals. It would
be very useful for dividing a matrix by a scalar. For example, the
construct

A := A / 2.0;

is very inefficient because a temporary matrix must be created to
store A/2, then an assignment must be used to put the result back in
A. On the other hand,
the construct

A /= 2.0

is not only much cleaner looking, it is much more efficient because
you can skip the temporary matrix and the assignment. And please don't
argue with me here, because you will only be showing your ignorance.
Good C++ programmers know all about this.

> > > And your "anyone who wants..." is no real argument. You then could
> > > write a C++ to Ada-Preprocessor to get the same effect. We can going
> > > on using Ada and the rest of the world can do their C++. Or do the
> > > preprocessor the other way around, it might be easier.
> >
> > Wrong. Converting from C++ to Ada would be infinitely more complicated
> > than going from Ada-F to Ada.
> >
> > > >I really don't understand the objection to my proposal. Ada advocates
> > > >keep telling me they like Ada's syntax and it doesn't need to be
> > > >changed.
> > >
> > > Yup. More or less this is the case. IMO the syntax is well chosen,
> > > perhaps not perfect, but very good and clear.
> >
> > Let me repeat: YOU'S STILL BE ABLE TO USE IT EVEN IF MY PROPOSAL WAS
> > ADOPTED.
> 
> <What's with all the shouting?>
> 
> How would you tell equals from assignment equals in your new mode?  I mean
> if you're allowed both they'd need to be mutually exclusive otherwise they'd
> confuse the reader and maybe even the compiler.

Thanks to another post, I now realize that I need to use "==" (or
something other than "=") for equality testing. That is exactly what
Python does. No problem at all.

<cut>

> btw I don't dislike c symbols, I just dislike ppl who think Ada should look
> like C to get a bit of recognition.  It's just plain silly.  The language is
> the way it is.

Here we go again. No, I don't want Ada to "look like C", and without
those silly semicolons it definitely won't.

> The best way to promote Ada (if that's what you want to do) is to write
> software in it, not mess with it's syntax.

Good luck.