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-Thread: 103376,672b169dc220673a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.211.103 with SMTP id nb7mr74534pbc.6.1337381098775;
        Fri, 18 May 2012 15:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 pr3ni2742pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Vector (container) initialization: the schizophrenic ampersand
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 18:44:57 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcc1umhds7q.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <10616734.43.1337286031745.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbjy7>
 <70510fa1-e554-44a7-9364-e745674c1bda@googlegroups.com>
 <28845c63-b06c-4ac2-b5d5-e408c0ff4b7f@googlegroups.com>
 <wcc7gw9ipio.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <ec0f19ed-e243-40b1-99a7-a27351307316@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1337381097 21478 192.74.137.71 (18 May 2012 22:44:57
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 22:44:57 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qERP7jvbj632wxeXHxERpG2fEFI=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: 2012-05-18T18:44:57-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com> writes:

> On Friday, May 18, 2012 8:31:59 AM UTC-5, Robert A Duff wrote:
>>
>> IMHO, a qualified expression is the elegant (and usual)
>> way to resolve ambiguities.  Renaming "&" to be "+" just
>> seems confusing, to me.
>> 
>> - Bob
>
> Isn't that the whole point of having the qualified expression, to tell
> the compiler "this is the type for this ambiguous operation"?

Yes, exactly.

Although qualified expressions also do some run-time checks, so
it's not the whole point, but the main point.

- Bob