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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d6ef988ec3a5ef7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: renaming Interfaces.Java.Ada_To_Java_String to the + operator
Date: 1998/01/14
Message-ID: <dewar.884797545@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 315902025
References: <dewar.884544974@merv> <199801141508.QAA07839@basement.replay.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 884798401 27357 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-01-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


<<Robert Dewar presents some good reasons to use "+" for conversion
operators, and my experience with large systems presents some good
reasons not to. I'm still undecided, and welcome further arguments from
either side (or the middle).
>>

Don't misread what I said, I never said that "+" *should* be used, or that
it should *not* be. Why do people always look for simple minded rules (don't
answer I know the answer :-)

The proper rule is use "+" when it is a good idea to use "+", and don't use
it when it does not help readability. Sorry, I can't tell you objectively
how to make this decision!

As for using the type name, well yes, you could add this, but to me I
find it quite reasonable to do

   type Node is ...

   function To_Node (X : blabla) return Node ...

Seems to read fine to me!