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: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:34:46 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lyppk4b76h.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <1ljwj8f.1wqbhvuabsdw1N%csampson@inetworld.net>
	<8761m535e4.fsf_-_@ludovic-brenta.org> <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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="17b46ff0ef6492aedc2232708a5c5eff";
	logging-data="3729"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ROBXFB1QYInjcul9sv4DPsFflShSjv00="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:YDvVvBqOU1mzFwXIRIMm3uvh1Ys=
	sha1:1aHBSghU6dWRSVGcK/125fO/39Y=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:19606
Date: 2014-04-26T13:34:46+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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