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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,81bb2ce65a3240c3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.241.162 with SMTP id wj2mr6380577pbc.2.1341090375576;
        Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:06:15 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 l9ni3585pbj.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: Brian Drummond <brian@shapes.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: What would you like in Ada202X?
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:06:15 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <jsnpo7$nvi$1@dont-email.me>
References: <3637793.35.1335340026327.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynfi5>
	<jsmpod$sk2$1@dont-email.me> <zxyreua5av5r.14pnmw216xzt6$.dlg@40tude.net>
	<jsnbbu$qq6$1@dont-email.me> <1hfh4rai2wgtv$.umqxi3ytqb26.dlg@40tude.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:06:15 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="DkTdSjxOCm6DqG+Uf7eArg";
	logging-data="24562"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX193938LXzKoJVJy7i/RDJvVwISx0TUhbjc="
User-Agent: Pan/0.135 (Tomorrow I'll Wake Up and Scald Myself with Tea; GIT
	30dc37b master)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jcIRdcNC4MqZL5qtfkPX+0Zy9bY=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-06-30T21:06:15+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:43:17 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 17:00:46 +0000 (UTC), Brian Drummond wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:34:10 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> 
>>> Code review and maintainability problems. The set of symbols cannot be
>>> infinite.
>> 
>> Practical considerations surely restrict the length of additional
>> operators, but I'm not sure that restriction belongs in the syntax.
> 
> I didn't meant length. I think that the number of operators should be
> small to be memorizable. All symbols should be predefined, e.g. from the
> Unicode page.

A symbol is not necessarily a single character;  "<="  already isn't. And 
restricting the sequence length necessarily restricts the number of 
possible identifiers, so I'm not clear what you are suggesting.
I do take the point that one shouldn't employ unnecessarily many, but is 
it the role of the syntax to enforce that?

- Brian

- Brian