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: 103376,54889de51045a215
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-16 08:42:21 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!news.alt.net!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!sccrnsc01.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Mark A. Biggar" <mark@biggar.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: += in ada
References: <3F7316F7.219F@mail.ru>
 <17cd177c.0310010606.52da88f3@posting.google.com> <3F8BC74F.2CFBFF37@0.0>
 <bebbba07.0310160049.3ede5878@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbot4oc.nr.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <1066312000.671303@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
In-Reply-To: <1066312000.671303@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <w%yjb.783830$YN5.775353@sccrnsc01>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.235.88.213
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-Trace: sccrnsc01 1066318940 12.235.88.213 (Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:42:20 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:42:20 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:42:20 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:991
Date: 2003-10-16T15:42:20+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hyman Rosen wrote:

> Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
> 
>> * Russ wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, a competent programmer will define the "+" operator in terms
>>> of the ":+" operator rather than vice versa, because the ":+" is
>>> usually more efficient (since it has no need for temporaries and extra
>>> copying).
>>
>>
>> Wrong.
> 
> 
> That's certainly the way it's usually done in C++,
> for exactly the reason stated, so a bald "wrong" is
> not terribly enlightening.
> 

Okay, show how to define "+" in terms of "+=" with out explicitly
reintroducing the temp variable you were so hot to eliminate?

-- 
mark@biggar.org
mark.a.biggar@comcast.net