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,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ace3fca092a457cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Unary operator after binary operator: legal or not? => Compiler
 Error
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <KYtri.46105$Fc.35820@attbi_s21>
 <h%Bri.384485$p47.369566@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <KdCri.384503$p47.38112@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
 <wccbqdsk40u.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <x5gt38t82erv.18bpz9z12rz3q.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wccy7gwa7sh.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:52:10 +0200
Message-ID: <g6d631ru7n28.14hgnvwzvo6uy.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 31 Jul 2007 19:52:10 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 8196d504.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=_RikX\75d<UV;Ef1`Jk54\McF=Q^Z^V3X4Fo<]lROoRQ^YC2XCjHcbYFS1o;5e<:jRDNcfSJ;bb[UIRnRBaCd<M^VO2j?CETOG[bD=iV=ZOdhV
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1295
Date: 2007-07-31T19:52:10+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:53:50 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote:

> But don't you think:
> 
>     X * -3
> 
> ought to be legal (no user-defined operators in sight)?

Maybe it was a typing error of:

    X * Y - 3

If not, then probably it is a style error:

   - X * 3

I find Ada's association restrictions a god idea. In earlier days C/C++
liberal policy of handling associations was a real problem. Nowadays, one
gets a warning in some cases, but Ada is far stricter and for all I think
that the idea of warning is itself not OK. Ideally, any program should be
either legal or not. Nothing in between. Any warning is a kind of defeat in
language design.

Of course if we considered -3 being a literal, that would change a lot. But
that would be IMO a bad idea.

BTW, following the reductionist's path, what about eliminating decimal
literals, introducing "." and "E" operators instead?

function "." (Numerator, Denominator : Universal_Integer)
   return Universal_Real;

 (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de