From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ichbiah 2022 compiler mode Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 07:18:29 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 09:18:29 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f0b3208cd64aa384126f587d0af4cdfe"; logging-data="1432116"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18xUhM1UXP/MidYGug8mO/o" User-Agent: Pan/0.160 (Toresk; ) Cancel-Lock: sha1:yoT7dEepJdC5d+SwNaubtEaW7fU= Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:66374 List-Id: On Sat, 14 Sep 2024 01:18:25 -0500, Randy Brukardt wrote: > Unfortunately, "updater" functions don't work with the Ada model of > components, because you can't tell what to do when a component appears > or disappears in an assignment. But it’s just syntactic sugar, nothing more. Instead of a := obj.get_prop() obj.set_prop(a) (both of which have valid Ada equivalents), you can unify them into a:= obj.prop obj.prop := a What difference does writing it differently make?