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=0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,b076e6315fd62dc5
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.191.225 with SMTP id hb1mr11224665pbc.5.1338343784957;
        Tue, 29 May 2012 19:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 pr3ni64327pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BrianG <me@null.email>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: fyi, very interesting Ada paper OOP vs. Readability
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 22:09:41 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <jq3vh7$6nh$1@dont-email.me>
References: <jodq5f$j5f$1@speranza.aioe.org> <jof9dq$c46$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <m2y5p0sfyg.fsf@pushface.org> <jokbc7$k7p$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 02:09:44 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="5MNoRlpIAhOS/jy0qxZerw";
	logging-data="6897"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Y3DFh3tH5S/DYp0fiy9iM"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Thunderbird/3.1.16
In-Reply-To: <jokbc7$k7p$1@munin.nbi.dk>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KCmHRt3EQ3zybTBIZP5L0WuMM4w=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-05-29T22:09:41-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 05/11/2012 08:37 PM, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> Ada should have had a "conversion" operator ("#" has been proposed), and
> clearly Ada.Strings.Unbounded should use it. But that gets shot down every
> time it is proposed (and it has been proposed for every language revision
> other than Ada 2012); mainly because a minority think that "+" is perfectly
> good for that. And another minority think that uses "+" on non-numeric types
> is *disgusting*, so we can never get the operators added to packages. A
> perfect impasse.
>
>                                                 Randy.
Why not unary "&", isn't that closer to the existing syntax?

-- 
---
BrianG
000
@[Google's email domain]
.com