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: 103376,7f4d16c4ee371eb5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Samuel T. Harris" <samuel_t_harris@Raytheon.com>
Subject: Re: Why is it Called a Package?
Date: 2000/04/07
Message-ID: <38EE19E0.F0232DB0@Raytheon.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 608067898
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <38DF7F38.8D656ABD@lmtas.lmco.com>
 <38DFB0BC.9FF72EFC@callnetuk.com> <wcc3dpcnkcd.fsf@world.std.com>
 <87u2hq857e.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org> <wcc4s9pr8o6.fsf@world.std.com>
 <38E2A4A4.E59E997C@research.canon.com.au> <wccya70bg8q.fsf@world.std.com>
 <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004061305320.6588-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <8ck2mt$jrn$1@clnews.edf.fr>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Organization: Raytheon Aerospace Engineering Services
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-04-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Pascal Obry wrote:
> =

> Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> a =E9crit dans le message :
> Pine.BSF.4.21.0004061305320.6588-100000@shell5.ba.best.com...
> > I think if the syntax were to be redone I'd like the issue of "()" ve=
rsus
> > "[]" for array indexing to be reexamined. Then we could also think ab=
out
> > some syntactic sugar for overloading "[]" as in C++. The restrictions=
 on
> > the character set that were part of the original Ada requirements don=
't
> > make a lot of sense to me now, though the restriction to ASCII is OK.=

> =

> I don't think we want that. A very nice consequence here is that you ca=
n
> easily change an abstraction from:
> =

>    package P is
>       Some_Value : array (1 .. 10) of Integer;
>       --  first quick implementation using basic array
>    end P;
> =

> to
> =

>    package P is
>       function Some_Value (N : in Positive) return Integer;
>       --  real implementation using a complex structure
>    end P;
> =

> (or the other way around) without modifying all client code.
> =

> I really don't see what would be gained by using "[]"... a more
> C/C++ syntax :)

I'd rather see [] and {} be allowed as substitutions for ()
in a similar way that ! of allowed for |, % is allowed for ",
and : is allowed for #. Of course, just as %'s substituded for "
have to be paired, so would {} and [] substitutions.

I see no compelling reason why array indexing
must be syntactically different from function calls. I do see
that some Ada code, especially when building complex aggregates,
starts to look like LISP (Lots of Insane Silly Parentheses).
I'd like to be able to use {} and [] for different levels
of (). If one then wants to make a style guide issue out of using
[] for indexing and {} to bracket all aggregates, then fine.

This is a very easy and backward compatible change to the
language definition. I suppose Apex would have a problem since
it uses [] for statement prompts. OTOH there are still many
more characters it can use for statement prompt delimiters.

-- =

Samuel T. Harris, Principal Engineer
Raytheon, Aerospace Engineering Services
"If you can make it, We can fake it!"