TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:13:18 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (42 lines)
[said Mike to Sam to Mike to Tucker to Rick]

We'll hunt the wren...

> > The other technical issues seem pretty simple to solve:
>
> Sure, if you write the rules to allow only simple cases.

I agree that my counter-arguments were simplistic -- they were
just existence proofs.

I guess I only implied my real point.  Let me spell it out.

If someone thinks that user-defined infix operators are a
worthwhile addition to the language, he'll probably have some
specific version of the facility in mind.  It may be possible,
even feasible, to add it to many compilers.

But once you get into the gritty details of a specific proposal,
how it works and what makes it difficult, you've already lost an
important part of the battle.  You've (apparently) conceded that
the idea is reasonable, and you're just niggling details.  (At
least, that's how the other person will probably see it.)

So I feel that the other arguments are stronger, not just in
degree but in kind.

But overall we agree.  I just meant to suggest we should put
forward the strongest, highest-level reasons first.

> I'm going to play devil's advocate with you here.

I didn't even know I was a candidate for canonization.  Wait a
minute, I'd have to be dead -- what are you saying here?!?!?

Best,
Sam Mize

--
Samuel Mize -- [log in to unmask] (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam

ATOM RSS1 RSS2