From: "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Subject: Re: Redefining "in" "operator"
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 17:39:22 +0100
Date: 2018-02-05T17:39:22+01:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <p5a1bq$f3v$1@dont-email.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <p5a0k1$9tk$1@dont-email.me>
On 02/05/2018 05:26 PM, Alejandro R. Mosteo wrote:
>
> Are there special reasons not to allow something like that? I think "in" is not
> an operator in the Ada RM sense but now I'm curious why the special treatment.
The right side of "[not] in" is a subtype. Ada does not allow operators to have
operands that are subtypes.
--
Jeff Carter
"If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate."
Monty Python's the Meaning of Life
56
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-05 16:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-05 16:26 Redefining "in" "operator" Alejandro R. Mosteo
2018-02-05 16:39 ` Jeffrey R. Carter [this message]
2018-02-06 0:48 ` Randy Brukardt
2018-02-06 18:07 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2018-02-05 16:43 ` J-P. Rosen
2018-02-05 17:23 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2018-02-05 17:41 ` Alejandro R. Mosteo
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox