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: 103376,38fc011071df5a27
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-06 23:24:38 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X
Date: 6 Jun 2003 23:24:37 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <bebbba07.0306062224.3d470927@posting.google.com>
References: <6a90b886.0305262344.1d558079@posting.google.com>
 <bebbba07.0306022127.46f6c998@posting.google.com>
 <3EDCBDF4.1050900@attbi.com>
 <bebbba07.0306031420.69c20f71@posting.google.com>
 <BB02E370.30D1%yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <bebbba07.0306031837.4c7de732@posting.google.com> <uadcxwzhi.fsf@nasa.gov>
 <bebbba07.0306041438.6cf89e79@posting.google.com> <uznkwflx8.fsf@nasa.gov>
 <bebbba07.0306060915.c4e478d@posting.google.com>
 <wccsmqnj6ub.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1054967078 32031 127.0.0.1 (7 Jun 2003 06:24:38
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 Jun 2003 06:24:38 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38779
Date: 2003-06-07T06:24:38+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message news:<wccsmqnj6ub.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>...
> 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes:
> 
> > Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov> wrote in message news:<uznkwflx8.fsf@nasa.gov>...
> > You seem to be going around in circles here. The whole idea was that A
> > += B can avoid the temporary matrix and the extra copy operation.
> > That's how it works in C++. Without that benefit, yes you might as
> > well just use A := A + B.
> 
> This is all speculation, since Ada does not *have* a +:= operator.
> It seems to me that if it did, the semantics should be identical to
> any other procedure call with two parameters (one 'in out', and one
> 'in').  It should *not* be similar to a *function* call, and should not
> return a result.  If all that were true, then of course +:= would be
> exactly as efficient as Matrix_Add.

I agree: "+=" would be a procedure, and "+" would be (is) a function.

This brings us full circle, back to the question of aesthetics. I say
that

    A += B

is far more elegant AND readable than

    Matrix_Add ( Into=>A, From=>B )

If you prefer the latter abomination, I think you're nuts.

Yes, "+=" is more familiar to me from C++, but note that Python uses
it too, and Python is known for its readability. I say that anyone who
cannot get used to "+=" (or ":+=" or whatever) is probably someone who
harbors such an irrational hatred of C++ that they will reject even
good ideas just because they came from from C++ (or C).