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: 2003-06-16 22:56:00 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: 16 Jun 2003 22:56:00 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: References: <3EE7CC70.E1FD3A67@adaworks.com> <3EECA772.4B662024@adaworks.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 1055829360 22156 127.0.0.1 (17 Jun 2003 05:56:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Jun 2003 05:56:00 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39310 Date: 2003-06-17T05:56:00+00:00 List-Id: Bill Findlay wrote in message news:... > On 16/6/03 19:19, in article bcl1pu$jscm4$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de, > "Vinzent Hoefler" wrote: > > >>> How would you think about > >>> i := () +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. ;) > > All the proposals so far have their problems: > > idem (or any new reserved word) but: a new reserved word > all but: could be a typo for "p.all" > <> but: consider "<> < <>+1" > & but: consider "& & &" > @ (or # or ? or $ or %) but: wrong associations? > > Despite the possibility of suggesting wrong associations, I'm tending to one > of the latter notations (this is about brevity after all), or perhaps "all". > If " were not a string quote, it would be good, being used already as an > abbreviation for 'ditto'. 8-) If you must go with something other than "+=", I still like "@". As far as I know, it is not currently used in Ada, and it seems natural to me because it represents what's currently "at" the location that is about to be overwritten. Then again, I don't see how "@" can be used for efficient vector/matrix procedures because it still requires an explicit assignment. Unless the compiler can figure out an efficient way around that, I still vote for "+=". If you really insist that "+=" looks too much like ":=", then I think ":+=" or some such kludge is the next best thing, but darnit that's ugly. I'm trying, but I'm still having trouble seeing "+=" being confused with ":=".