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,ace3fca092a457cd X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Unary operator after binary operator: legal or not? => Compiler Error Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:53:50 -0400 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1185897232 31611 192.74.137.71 (31 Jul 2007 15:53:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:53:52 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix) Cancel-Lock: sha1:CZWT3MxTcpjGUrT5lPLZahFTEFk= Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1292 Date: 2007-07-31T11:53:50-04:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:05:05 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote: > >> If there's a bug, it's a bug in the language definition. ;-) > > But not in this place. There should be user-defined subtypes, which would > eliminate any need in tricks like defining nonsensical "+", just in order > to have a shortest possible name for the conversion, which otherwise should > be automatic. Agreed. But don't you think: X * -3 ought to be legal (no user-defined operators in sight)? - Bob