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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,38fc011071df5a27 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-17 09:58:56 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.gbronline.com!news.gbronline.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:58:54 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:59:37 -0500 From: Wesley Groleau Reply-To: wesgroleau@despammed.com Organization: Ain't no organization here! User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030425 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, es-mx, pt-br, fr-ca MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ideas for Ada 200X "left hand side" repeater. References: <3EE7CC70.E1FD3A67@adaworks.com> <3EECA772.4B662024@adaworks.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.117.18.41 X-Trace: sv3-0h5kqp/8yL3SbpdUtW+9kn5clsWsJqsYm4AOl32Run60EntWVYeTO3z4UqUeO0r882Ablj9rdYYwdHO!6126L75/q6d+qaCJAuy1uJuWZDi1UNR8RNZZW/v+DWu/xYLkVPMQLlRaB/wsOTRH7tGub1ozOIh9!h7eU X-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39348 Date: 2003-06-17T11:59:37-05:00 List-Id: > If one use "is" I would have thought : > > Screen.Buffer(i) is Pixel in Pixel := Pixel + 1; > > but perhaps this is because of that Norwegian is my language and English > only the second? Actually, if one wants to emulate English, Pixel is Screen.Buffer(i) in Pixel := Pixel + 1; would be semantically better. But it seems to me that renames covers all the "wishes" so far except two. And it adds two: 1. With a declare block, one can give the new name as big or as small a scope as needed. 2. The new name can be something that logically suits the scope it's given. The two that are not covered: 1. The wish to trim the number of keystrokes to an absolute minimum. As most of us know, that is NOT a concern of an Ada fan. 2. The wish to avoid temporaries for a more efficient construct. As has already been said more than once, this is a red herring. It can avoid temporaries ONLY if doing so would not break any other language rules. And there is (obviously) no language rule requiring the current construct to be less efficient than the new one. 3. One point in favor of the new construct is that if evaluation had side effects, they would occur once instead of twice. But in that case, instead of renames, one would use an initialized variable (and copy-back or write-through) or an in out parameter.