Re: Comments requested for a couple of Ada-Comments submissions

[Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>]

On 14-07-11 18:35 , Adam Beneschan wrote:
> On Thursday, July 10, 2014 9:56:36 PM UTC-7, Shark8 wrote:
> 
>>> One suggested syntax would be:
>>> 	A := (A changing C => D, E => F);
>>> or
>>> 	A := (A updating C => D, E => F);
>>> where A is a record and C and E are record components.
> 
>> I don't really like the new keyword idea.
> 
>     A := (C => D, E => F, others => A.others);

To me, this looks too much like a normal aggregate. Only at the end,
from the new form "A.others", do we see that it is a partial aggregate.

Also, the duplication of the word "others" is a bit ugly, and "A.others"
does not really mean anything by itself; its meaning depends on the
components listed before the "others" part. How about:

   (C => D, E => F, then others => A)

or

   (C => D, E => F, and others => A)

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
      .      @       .