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: 2003-10-10 11:56:34 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: 10 Oct 2003 11:56:34 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <25oh51-uu2.ln1@beastie.ix.netcom.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 1065812194 32180 127.0.0.1 (10 Oct 2003 18:56:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:56:34 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:641 Date: 2003-10-10T11:56:34-07:00 List-Id: Preben Randhol wrote in message news:... > On 2003-10-10, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote: > > Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler fed this fish to the penguins on Thursday 09 > > October 2003 12:42 pm: > > > > > >> > >> Inhouse we have a term for that: "Historical reason". ;) > >> > >> That means "dirty, little thing that's just there and nobody wants to > >> touch it, because if you'd do, it'll surely break some time". That may apply to C++, but it does not apply to Java, Perl, and Python. > > Regretably, in the case of Python, it was not "historical reason"... > > The BDFL succumbed to the demands of the C-slaves and added the feature > > (think they arrived with v2.1 of Python, maybe v2.2... v2.3 has only > > recently been released). Sorry, but that's a gross distortion. Guido Von Rossom himself wanted augmented assignment operators. > Yes exactly. The problem is when people think something is a great idea > merly because everybody else does/uses it. Most cases it is not so. You have a very strong proclivity for twisting what I say. I did *not* say that anything is a great "because everybody else does/uses it". What I said is that "everybody else does/uses it" *because* it is a great idea. Those are two very different claims. It is becoming clear to me that debating with you is like sparring with one of those bottom-heavy clown dummies that always right themselves regardless of how hard you hit them. No matter what I say, you aggressively miss the point and come back with the same tired old crap. I sincerely hope that your attitude is not representative of the entire Ada community, because if it is, Ada is doomed. Then again, it may be doomed anyway -- unfortunately.