Re: Clause "with and use"
From: Martin Dowie (martin.dowie_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 11/09/03
- Next message: Martin Dowie: "Re: New limited range type?"
- Previous message: Stefan Soos: "Different initial values for derived type?"
- In reply to: Russ: "Re: Clause "with and use""
- Next in thread: Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler: "Re: Clause "with and use""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 9 Nov 2003 06:27:23 -0800
18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) wrote in message news:<bebbba07.0311071231.239981ea@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> I never called anyone an idiot for not using "+=" (as your statement
> above implies), nor did I ever call anyone an idiot for opposing
> augmented assignment operators in Ada. As far as I can recall, all I
> said is that any professional programmer who has difficulty grasping
> the concept of "+=", or who considers it "unreadable," must be an
> idiot. I will add that I don't think anyone who is intelligent enough
> to become a professional programmer could possibly fall into that
> category.
For my part I don't find it unreadable, but I have found it _unreliable_
in languages like C/C++ (just yesterday, in fact!). Yesterdays bug was a
case of "i+-2" instead of "i+=2". Now that would clearly be caught by the
compiler with your proposal as it's changed a statement into an
expression. But I think it shows the 'baggage' that this sort of short
form comes with.
FUD.
- Next message: Martin Dowie: "Re: New limited range type?"
- Previous message: Stefan Soos: "Different initial values for derived type?"
- In reply to: Russ: "Re: Clause "with and use""
- Next in thread: Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler: "Re: Clause "with and use""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
