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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,10444cff97404845
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Andi Kleen <ak-uu@muc.de>
Subject: Re: C like op= proposal
Date: 1999/08/18
Message-ID: <m3u2pxt7m7.fsf@fred.muc.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 514284941
References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908151023060.10801-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <m3d7wosq6h.fsf@vault84.infomatch.bc.ca>
 <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908152124300.7953-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <37B7D172.DCE02FFA@Maths.UniNe.CH> <87emh2l218.fsf@antinea.enst.fr>
 <m3u2pyutzu.fsf@fred.muc.de> <7pd6th$2qj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: news@fred.muc.de
X-Trace: fred.muc.de 934991152 1017 127.0.0.1 (18 Aug 1999 15:45:52 GMT)
Organization: barely any
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Gnus/5.070095 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.95) Emacs/20.4
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Aug 1999 15:45:52 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-08-18T15:45:52+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

> In article <m3u2pyutzu.fsf@fred.muc.de>,
>   Andi Kleen <ak-uu@muc.de> wrote:
> > [1] To attribute correctly this is an old argument from, I
> believe
> > Dennis Ritchie, in a prehistoric article about C. I think he's
> right.
> 
> 
> No, this is older than C, these notations were around in
> Algol variants (as +:=) before C existed. Note that Algol-68
> has these operators.

So was the argument "x+=1 is more human brain and code review friendly 
than x:=x+1" already used during Algol development? 

I was just attributing where I read this particular point
first.

I guess the reason why it wasn't included in Pascal is that Wirth
was too hooked to pure mathematical thinking where they of course
equivalent (ignoring that x:=x+1 is per see mathematical nonsense,
either x is x or it is x+1, but not both @)

> But there are many other factors in the Ada decision. Please
> go look up old threads, I don't feel like going over this stuff
> again myself :-)

I don't intend to, I understand that it is unrealistic and will
probably never happen to Ada.  I just couldn't resist to bring
another view to the boring "+= helps the optimizer" discussions.


-Andi
-- 
This is like TV. I don't like TV.