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: 2003-10-16 22:42:07 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: 16 Oct 2003 22:42:07 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <bebbba07.0310162142.5637b231@posting.google.com>
References: <3F7316F7.219F@mail.ru>
 <bebbba07.0310091107.6c0c3716@posting.google.com>
 <49cbf610.0310101231.2358762a@posting.google.com>
 <bebbba07.0310141000.681da5c@posting.google.com>
 <49cbf610.0310150616.3503a1c4@posting.google.com>
 <bebbba07.0310152140.32c77feb@posting.google.com>
 <bmn02h$jev$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <bebbba07.0310161837.7efd9995@posting.google.com>
 <mailman.104.1066359213.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1066369327 23341 127.0.0.1 (17 Oct 2003 05:42:07
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 05:42:07 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1052
Date: 2003-10-16T22:42:07-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

sk <noname@myob.com> wrote in message news:<mailman.104.1066359213.25614.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>...
> 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com:

> And if this is so, can you not accept that the CLA
> netizens are not particularly interested in your
> proposed augmented operators ?

"My" augmented assignment operators? No, I'm just a messenger from the
outside world. Check it out sometime.

>  > ... Nor did I ever call *everyone* who doesn't want ":+" fools.
> 
> Your tone does suggest that you think that all who do not agree
> are fools :-)

No, I just think they are missing out on an elegant programming
convenience, and they are rejecting a standard notation in favor of a
hodge-podge of awkward procedure names. As I have tried to explain
before, it's not a big thing, but I think it's a significant little
thing. And yes, little things *can* be significant.