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: 103376,1116ece181be1aea
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-25 09:38:12 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!skates!not-for-mail
From: Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is the Writing on the Wall for Ada?
Date: 25 Sep 2003 12:36:49 -0400
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (skates.gsfc.nasa.gov)
Message-ID: <uu170lt9a.fsf@nasa.gov>
References: <u1xuja5zs.fsf@earthlink.net>
 <bebbba07.0309141159.37274fb3@posting.google.com>
 <3F650BBE.4080107@attbi.com>
 <bebbba07.0309142311.5e985121@posting.google.com>
 <KdadnYb-q-ujZviiU-KYgw@gbronline.com> <3F67AAC6.2000906@attbi.com>
 <RbSdnT6kv7SrdPqiU-KYuQ@gbronline.com>
 <bebbba07.0309171110.192b565c@posting.google.com> <3F7024F8.1000102@crs4.it>
 <bebbba07.0309231059.130bddd1@posting.google.com> <3F71A78A.5000701@crs4.it>
 <bebbba07.0309241642.6c1146f0@posting.google.com>
 <bkubhj$5v7t7$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <K2ednV1MVptGku6iU-KYvg@gbronline.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.gsfc.nasa.gov
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: skates.gsfc.nasa.gov 1064507979 1907 128.183.235.92 (25 Sep 2003
 16:39:39 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.gsfc.nasa.gov
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Sep 2003 16:39:39 GMT
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42907
Date: 2003-09-25T16:39:39+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Wes Groleau <groleau@freeshell.org> writes:

> Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler wrote:
> > They are not equivalent.
> 
> The results are equivalent if an error does not occur.
> Russ's case is based on the false claim that the
> implementation MUST always be different.

You (and others) missed the fact that the two names are _not_
identical (one has an 'm' where the other has an 'n'). Which (I
suspect) was the point; repeated long names are hard to verify.

Of course, this example would be thrown out at any real code review,
and a compiler would catch a simple misspelling. But the point
remains:

foo.bar.blah (2).barf (anything) += 1; 

is easier to get right, and easier to review, than

foo.bar.blah (2).barf (anything) := 
    foo.bar.blah (2).barf (anything) + 1; 

This would also be thrown out at any real code review; the recommended
approach in Ada is to use a local renames declaration to simplify the
repeated name, or to declare an Inc operator.

But I think we should simply acknowledge the fact that C and C++ have
a slight edge here, that we are willing to live with because of the
other consequences of trying to define and implement "+=" in Ada.

-- 
-- Stephe