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,ae67f75abbc71211
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-25 10:47:57 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hub1.nntpserver.com!news-xfer.siscom.net!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3C7A8668.50BC257B@cl.cilas.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:46:00 +0900
From: Toshitaka Kumano <kumano@cl.cilas.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [ja] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en,ja
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why not using [] instead of () for array?
References: <9ff447f2.0202241719.446bf17b@posting.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 157.120.133.253
X-Original-Trace: 25 Feb 2002 11:45:44 -0700, 157.120.133.253
X-COMPLAINTS: Report abuse to abuse@mhogaming.com
Organization: Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price!
 www.newshosting.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Feb 2002 18:47:54 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: dca43011.news.newshosting.com
X-Trace: 
 DXC=NhIJi;d@HKR=YL;FUFb>kWX`1N4>^k1LSiF6BbIV4YYRLnHEXCOOR@_3Q82hNQID3QM;lF[5C2PfXj>5iH<HJ_N\cWJ>oehSGZV
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newshosting.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20389
Date: 2002-02-25T18:47:54+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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