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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-01 03:07:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!enews.sgi.com!news.xtra.co.nz!not-for-mail From: "AG" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com> <9ff447f2.0107301653.c8f5e94@posting.google.com> <3B6624E6.DF734E5C@sneakemail.com> Subject: Re: How to make Ada a dominant language X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2001 22:08:19 +1200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.54.86.22 X-Complaints-To: newsadmin@xtra.co.nz X-Trace: news.xtra.co.nz 996660442 210.54.86.22 (Wed, 01 Aug 2001 22:07:22 NZST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 22:07:22 NZST Organization: Xtra Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10929 Date: 2001-08-01T22:08:19+12:00 List-Id: "Russ Paielli" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:3B6624E6.DF734E5C@sneakemail.com... > Adrian Hoe wrote: > > > > Russ Paielli <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:<3B6555ED.9B0B0420@sneakemail.com>... > > > > > > What's so great about ":="? Why not use "$=" or "%="? > > > > "=" means equal. "IF A = 0 THEN" reads as "if A equals 0 then" and > > ":=" means assignment. > > But "x = 4" means that, immediately after the statement is executed, x > indeed equals 4. I don't see a problem with using "=" for both > assignment AND equality testing (am I missing something?). I suspect you may be: you are trying to overload the meaning of an equality mark. That means (if you really insist on that) that the mark itself pretty much looses it's unique meaning, becoming dependent on the context and requiring an additional context/syntax scan around the place to deremine it's meaning. That's not a very good thing as far as the readability is concerned - just think of possible typos which cannot be resolved without context check and are sure to mislead on the first read. Also, the equality mark traditionally meant exactly that - equality, not asignment. Ever heard a professional math person wonder aloud how CAN x be equal to x + 1 unless it is infinite? [That's your requirement I take it: to use x=x+1?] > Because I'd like to have a language that has both excellent fundamentals > AND a clear, minimal syntax. I want it all. And I'm a compulsive > minimalist, I guess. It bothers me to see ":=" when "=" will do the job Whell, it doesn't seem like it would.