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: 2003-06-18 18:39:39 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: 18 Jun 2003 18:39:38 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <bebbba07.0306181739.6e553a10@posting.google.com>
References: <uhe6zw201.fsf@nasa.gov> <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>
 <bebbba07.0306171420.2a6cb3d0@posting.google.com>
 <BB15569B.3614%yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1055986779 4330 127.0.0.1 (19 Jun 2003 01:39:39
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Jun 2003 01:39:39 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39424
Date: 2003-06-19T01:39:39+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Bill Findlay <yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<BB15569B.3614%yaldnifw@blueyonder.co.uk>...
> On 17/6/03 23:20, in article
> bebbba07.0306171420.2a6cb3d0@posting.google.com, "Russ"
> <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Consider:
> 
>    a, b : Boolean;
>    --
>    a := a = b;
>    a := b; -- ??
> 
> What would that mean?

It would mean the same thing it means now. I don't see how this has
anything to do with what I proposed. Am I missing something?