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: 2003-06-17 15:20:44 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: 17 Jun 2003 15:20:43 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <bebbba07.0306171420.2a6cb3d0@posting.google.com>
References: <uhe6zw201.fsf@nasa.gov> <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$Hb.124073@news4.e.nsc.no>
 <BB13C10D.350A%yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <bcl1pu$jscm4$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de>
 <BB13CDB9.3516%yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>
 <bebbba07.0306162156.62f0c216@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbetjlg.ki.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.102.146.44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1055888443 20889 127.0.0.1 (17 Jun 2003 22:20:43
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Jun 2003 22:20:43 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39368
Date: 2003-06-17T22:20:43+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message news:<slrnbetjlg.ki.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>...
> Russ wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Yes it is ugly the way you wrote it, but +:= isn't. Remember that
> assignment in Ada is := so one shouldn't seperate these two signs.
> 
> > I'm trying, but I'm still having trouble seeing "+=" being confused
> > with ":=".
> 
> What about /= ? The problem is that += doesn't make sense in Ada as = is
> not the assignment syntax := is.

An interesting idea just popped into my head. We've considered "+="
and "+:=", but what about ":+"? Check it out:

    count :+ 1
    A :+ B
    var :/ 2.0

Simple, clear, only two characters, and no conflict with "/=". What do
you think?