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 06:39:23 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why not using [] instead of () for array? Date: 25 Feb 2002 06:39:23 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0202250639.5002d518@posting.google.com> References: <9ff447f2.0202241719.446bf17b@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1014647963 25253 127.0.0.1 (25 Feb 2002 14:39:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Feb 2002 14:39:23 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20364 Date: 2002-02-25T14:39:23+00:00 List-Id: David Starner wrote in message news:... > [] are not in the ISO 646 safe subset Indeed, it was always a pain to write Pascal in Sweden, where [] are overridden for the extra letters in the Swedish alphabet. But anyone asking this question should also understand that a) this is a very old old language discussion item, dating back decades, with arguments on both sides (there are those who like the idea of using the same syntax for two different concrete ways of representing functions - an array is of course simply a function mathematically). b) this has been discussed ad nauseam, and there is nothing else to add c) this has been discussed on CLA, and now that google has all the old records, there is no excuse for anyone not consuling the archives :-)