In article <7g72rf$hjh3@ftp.kvaerner.com>, "Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen" <tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.no> writes:

> What would a(5) := 4; mean then? You cannot assign to a function as far as I
> know. Which in my opinion voids the function opposition to the common
> convention of using square brackets for array indices.

As you obviously figured out, it works for X := A(5).
Yes, this is not symmetric, the way Bliss structures are.
But Ada is not Bliss, and like all languages it is a compromise.

> I don't mind if the function addicts still writes a(5) := 4, if I can write
> a[5] := 4.

I don't care what you write, I just want uniformity in what I read,
which is why I want uniformity in what compilers accept.  I would
not have minded if [] had been used all around instead of (), but
that was not the case.

Larry Kilgallen