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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Oberon and Wirthian languages
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 11:38:59 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lylhurawfw.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <1ljwj8f.1wqbhvuabsdw1N%csampson@inetworld.net>
	<lj3540$m81$1@dont-email.me> <lj3nao$u22$2@dont-email.me>
	<lj4de1$jql$1@dont-email.me> <ly7g6hamsw.fsf@pushface.org>
	<lj5n4g$jse$1@dont-email.me> <brntbeFnfgcU1@mid.individual.net>
	<lj6kfg$jhs$1@dont-email.me> <lj6uhp$7dd$1@loke.gir.dk>
	<lj8aug$43b$1@dont-email.me> <ly61lzrciv.fsf@pushface.org>
	<lj9lbm$cig$1@dont-email.me> <brsggrFmd3gU1@mid.individual.net>
	<ljbmfm$j7u$1@dont-email.me> <brt9ftFrnkaU1@mid.individual.net>
	<ljce8q$qpb$1@loke.gir.dk> <ljekbl$bbt$1@dont-email.me>
	<ljeljn$sb3$1@loke.gir.dk> <lytx9gblln.fsf@pushface.org>
	<bs1cg3Fmvr4U1@mid.individual.net> <lyppk4b76h.fsf@pushface.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="17b46ff0ef6492aedc2232708a5c5eff";
	logging-data="9912"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18+GEa83Txbb0kxLOpNn5xLu6KtnPg1PzU="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0nwiq7Fzrg8mdVGRJpEGYSVicA8=
	sha1:OgpQzIY6IYS6cNMr3pOTmv+mC3s=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:19610
Date: 2014-04-27T11:38:59+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:

> Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 14-04-26 10:23 , Simon Wright wrote:
>>> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> This is a case where the keyword will make all of the
>>>> difference. If we were
>>>> using a new keyword, perhaps something like:
>>>>
>>>>    A := (A replacing C => D, E => F);
>>>>
>>>> would do the trick.
>>> 
>>> I'd find
>>> 
>>>    A := (A with C => D, E => F);
>>> 
>>> quite straightforward.
>>
>> Yes, but that looks exactly like an extension aggregate, where the
>> ancestor object A is extended to a derived type with the new components
>> C and E. Maybe the compiler would not be confused, but I would be. I
>> think that an "updating" partial aggregate should be syntactically
>> distinct from an extension aggregate.
>
> OK, point taken

But Dirk Craenest says (out of band)

> I haven't been able to follow the whole discussion in detail, but
> what about:
> 
>  A := (A overriding C => D, E => F);
> 
> It seems to have everything wished for:
> - doesn't need a new keyword,
> - is short,
> - uses aggregate-like notation,
> - "reads" reasonably well, i.e.:
>  use the value of A, but overriding component C with D, and E with F.