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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,79bbf7e359159d0d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-04-17 00:10:10 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!news.iac.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news-feed1.eu.concert.net!news.algonet.se!algonet!pepsi.tninet.se!not-for-mail
From: Mats Karlssohn <mats@mida.se>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: newbie can't get exceptions to work!
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 09:04:00 +0200
Organization: MIDA Systemutveckling AB
Message-ID: <3ADBEAE0.7D69463E@mida.se>
References: <wcc8zl95y6f.fsf@world.std.com>
 <3AD2788C.7F2BAFA3@worldnet.att.net>
 <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104092047500.4414-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <pcLA6.2553$FY5.178009@www.newsranger.com>
 <9b1oqv$ikb$2@taliesin.netcom.net.uk> <3AD4D3C2.E45751D9@worldnet.att.net>
 <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104111603060.8783-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <3AD54C20.27489848@mida.se>
 <Pine.BSF.4.21.0104120932131.26213-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sdu36-248.ppp.algonet.se
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: zingo.tninet.se 987491015 17705 195.163.248.36 (17 Apr 2001 07:03:35
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@algo.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Apr 2001 07:03:35 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (WinNT; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:6936
Date: 2001-04-17T07:03:35+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Brian Rogoff wrote:
[SNIP - perl stuff]
>
> I guess the first step in unifying Ada notations (if you think () is so
> great :) is to get rid of the attribute syntax and replace that with
> function call notation. This would actually be a bit more consistent too,
> since you can't define a new 'Image but you can define a new Image(X) :-)

This is actually a really good point, I've always (almost anyway)
wondered why the attributes were designed to have the syntax that they
have today. Not that I find them that annoying, but in half of their
use the attributes behaves just like functions, the other half (when
setting object'size := 14; for example) is another matter.

Do someone remember the history behind this ?

-- 
Mats Karlssohn, developer                         mailto:mats@mida.se  
Mida Systemutveckling AB                          http://www.mida.se
Box 64, S-732 22 ARBOGA, SWEDEN
Phone: +46-(0)589-89808   Fax: +46-(0)589-89809