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: 103376,1116ece181be1aea
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-26 00:55:15 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada? [although this thread changed
 to something else a long time ago]
Date: 26 Sep 2003 00:55:11 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <bebbba07.0309252355.5b3b8c8f@posting.google.com>
References: <KdadnYb-q-ujZviiU-KYgw@gbronline.com>
 <3F67AAC6.2000906@attbi.com> <RbSdnT6kv7SrdPqiU-KYuQ@gbronline.com>
 <bebbba07.0309171110.192b565c@posting.google.com> <3F7024F8.1000102@crs4.it>
 <bebbba07.0309231059.130bddd1@posting.google.com> <3F71A78A.5000701@crs4.it>
 <bebbba07.0309241642.6c1146f0@posting.google.com>
 <bkubhj$5v7t7$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <BkAcb.579943$uu5.94364@sccrnsc04>
 <bebbba07.0309251111.4c33c2ba@posting.google.com>
 <bkvhb0$6ih3f$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1064562914 28433 127.0.0.1 (26 Sep 2003 07:55:14
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Sep 2003 07:55:14 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42972
Date: 2003-09-26T07:55:14+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler <ada.rocks@jlfencey.com> wrote in message news:<bkvhb0$6ih3f$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>...

> The second thing: If we introduce such a syntax in Ada, this means it
> *will* be used even in simple cases like
> 
> |Count := Count + 1;
> 
> that converts to
> 
> |Count += 1;
> 
> (because programmers *are* lazy) and IMO this *would* definitely have
> a large impact on general readability. I'd say, the general effect on
> readability would be worse than that what we would get back from
> adding something like the "+="-operator syntax to the language.

I happen to think they *should* use the shorter form even for simple
cases. When Python added augmented assignment operators (2.1?), I went
through my Python scripts and changed the incrementation operations to
"+=". My Python scripts are very clean and readable, by the way.

Let me pose a question. Suppose you were picking apples and putting
them into a bushel basket. Each time you pick an apple, would you dump
the contents of the basket on the ground, add the new apple, then
reload them all into the basket? Or would you just add the new apple
to the basket?

In other words, would you do

    basket := basket + 1;
or
    basket += 1; -- or basket :+ 1