Re: Why not using [] instead of () for array?

[Toshitaka Kumano <kumano@cl.cilas.net>]

Adrian Hoe wrote:
> 2. More distinguishable from functions parameters and leads to 1.

Although I don't know what the true reason is, "*in*distinguishablity"
here is my favorite.

From a mathematical view, The syntax,
   Output := Mapping (Input);  
can be read "Input maps onto Input".

And the mapping can be static as arrays or dynamic as some function,
in various reason, according to circumstances.

Although I admit they are not equivalent, for in array Input cannot be
composite, the psuedo-equivalence makes me feel there is good sense in
the language design, say, conformity against modification, here.

The mapping-like-sematics of "()" is true also with type conversion,
where representation mapping is done via derivation, e.g., from
byte map to bitmap, or from "no-repped" enumeration to "repped"
enumeration, vice versa. 

In another case, the fact that a parameterless function is
indistinguishable with a variable, unlike other languages, makes me
charmed much.


And there is more "visually indistinguishable" things in the language,
probably intently, e.g. Tasks.Entry vs Package.Procedure,
Access_Object.Component vs Non-Access_Object.Component...


*Visual* indistinguishability makes little problem in the strong-typed
language, bacause compilers are so *ruthless* in their
distinguishability
:-)

-- 
Toshitaka Kumano