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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,c7d533acec91ae16 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: David Starner Subject: Re: Question for the folks who designed Ada95 Date: 1999/04/27 Message-ID: <3725C49E.8106A44B@aasaa.ofe.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 471476431 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: <7g2qu4$ca4$1@usenet.rational.com> <7g3b5g$p92$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7g4ae3$hjh2@ftp.kvaerner.com> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Organization: Oklahoma State University Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-04-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen" wrote: > I know that when Ada 83 was defined one could not rely on [ and ] being > available (Pascal used (. and .) instead of [ and ] if my memory serves me > right). However these days I see no reason not to comply with the common use of > square brackets with arrays. > > Arrays as functions? Since when could you assign to a function?? But that was a deliberate choice. IIRC, Ada 83 depended on ASCII which supplied [], so they could have gone with brackets. Now, you can't change (my Fortran teacher is still complaining about Fortran 77 breaking character assignment, and you want to break all arrays in Ada95?), and there's really no reason to add syntax fluff, at least here.