From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,2078ce7aac45af5b
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.181.13.205 with SMTP id fa13mr1205252wid.3.1353486775724;
        Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:32:55 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 ha8ni3667wib.1!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.141.40.65.MISMATCH!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!backlog2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada202X : Adding functors
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 21:37:49 +0100
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <1na6brajyyab1.1m57ova8gzvwk$.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <0114d327-9f9f-4ad2-9281-56331d11a90c@googlegroups.com>
 <2bb9e5fa-04a2-4073-bca1-1739ce0580f1@googlegroups.com>
 <57bca956-2348-4825-8f5f-04fb91863696@googlegroups.com>
 <094f94ed-dbcc-4dba-bd9d-894a75f69037@googlegroups.com>
 <d2a94934-9a3f-4e50-b97d-249980221aea@googlegroups.com>
 <8373eaf3-5299-4bbb-a462-56d2d76d6333@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: pSb85Ij4EqcuHDcWtw64BQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Original-Bytes: 2411
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2012-11-14T21:37:49+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:54:09 -0800 (PST), Adam Beneschan wrote:

> A new way to write obfuscated code?

I don't understand the point. If there is any obfuscation then on the Ada's
side which does not support straightforward declaration of user-defined
arrays/indexing operation.

> You can already do this in Ada 2005; no need to use the new accessor
> features, which are confusing because you're trying to use them in a way
> they're not intended to be used.

Which is?

> You haven't given a good argument for why we need to change the language
> so that programmers can write the above without the .Perform.

Because arrays do not have Perform operation, they do ()-operation.

Indexing is a well established abstraction, which barely needs any
arguments, since most higher level languages have arrays starting with
FORTRAN.

If any argumentation is needed, then on the side of those, who is arguing
that arrays must be only language-defined. Why?

> and (2) programmers can already abuse features of the language to make it
> look the way you want, so we should enshrine it.

Maybe ARG should not introduce features abused so easily? Unfortunately
many of Ada 2005/2012 changes make the language less safe and more
difficult to understand.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de