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: 103376,54889de51045a215
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-06 17:41:43 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: += in ada
Date: 6 Oct 2003 17:41:43 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <bebbba07.0310061641.2ec215c6@posting.google.com>
References: <3F7316F7.219F@mail.ru>
 <17cd177c.0310010606.52da88f3@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbno6c3.oa.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <slrnbno8gc.mc.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <slrnbnoaek.oa.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de> <lzwubns4v8.fsf@cts.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.102.146.44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1065487303 7508 127.0.0.1 (7 Oct 2003 00:41:43
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 00:41:43 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:352
Date: 2003-10-06T17:41:43-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> wrote in message news:<lzwubns4v8.fsf@cts.com>...
> Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz@iks-jena.de> writes:
> > * Preben Randhol wrote:
> > > On 2003-10-02, Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz@iks-jena.de> wrote:
> > >> The "idem"-Idiom would be much better.
> > >>   X(b(i).all+7) := idem + 2/idem;
> > >
> > > The problem I have with idem is that it looks like just another
> > > variable.
> > 
> > I insist on the semantical meaning, but not on the syntactical term.
> 
> Didn't somebody once suggest "@" for this?
> 
>     X(b(i).all+7) := @ + 2/@;

Yes, I did. I think "@" is appropriate because it represents what is
"at" the location that is about to be overwritten. But I don't think
this notation is as good as ":+", etc. Yes, it *is* more general, but
that generality is rarely needed.