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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,8c8550b9f2cf7d40 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-05 10:17:50 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!uninett.no!ntnu.no!not-for-mail From: Preben Randhol Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Is ther any sense in *= and matrices? Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:17:50 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Norwegian university of science and technology Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no X-Trace: tyfon.itea.ntnu.no 1054833470 22615 129.241.83.78 (5 Jun 2003 17:17:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@itea.ntnu.no NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:17:50 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:38702 Date: 2003-06-05T17:17:50+00:00 List-Id: Vinzent Hoefler wrote: > > Let's take an extreme example and suppose I have an integer type > defined only for range 0 .. 1. So writing a += would only make sense > for the "special" case that at least one of the operands is zero, not > for the general case, because then the result doesn't fit into the > original operand. But I wouldn't say, writing such a function wouldn't > make sense at all... ;) > > In the matrix case it's just that you can't write a *= that works for > the more general case. Simple as that. I really wouldn't see a problem > with that. Well I don't see the point the *= syntax sugar either ;-) -- Preben Randhol http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/