Re: problem: unitialized +=

[Akim Demaille]

>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Collins <address@hidden> writes:

Robert> Is there are reason that the automate values cannot all be +=,
Robert> with a flag to ignore the value completely if the user uses =
Robert> not += ?

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

Robert> Without handling this in the intuitive fashion, I suspect +=
Robert> will vary rarely get used.

The thing is, you find this syntax attractive and suddenly you'd like
to have this feature.  But that's not the problem, we are (well, I for
one :) not proposing this feature, and we are precisely debating about
the fact that supporting this syntax gives the wrong idea that there
is some feature behind.

This is why I had forbidden user variables first set by `+=': there
cannot be any confusion.  And now that I rediscovered why it was this
way, I think we should keep it this way.