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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7f4d16c4ee371eb5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Stanley R. Allen" Subject: Re: Why is it Called a Package? Date: 2000/04/07 Message-ID: <38EE53B5.5443C0E5@raytheon.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 608156609 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <38DF7F38.8D656ABD@lmtas.lmco.com> <38DFB0BC.9FF72EFC@callnetuk.com> <87u2hq857e.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org> <38E2A4A4.E59E997C@research.canon.com.au> <8ck2mt$jrn$1@clnews.edf.fr> <38EE19E0.F0232DB0@Raytheon.com> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: NASA, Kennedy Space Center Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-04-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Samuel T. Harris" wrote: > > 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 would vote for [] as substitution for (). But never {} -- too many painful memories! -- Stanley Allen mailto:Stanley_R_Allen-NR@raytheon.com