Re: Question for the folks who designed Ada95

[dennison@telepath.com]

In article <7g4gjk$luq@drn.newsguy.com>,
  bill@nospam.com wrote:
> In article <7g4ae3$hjh2@ftp.kvaerner.com>, "Tarjei says...
>
> >
> >While you are at it, why not get us [ and ] for arrays (in addtion to, not
> >instead of parenthesises). I really want to write a[4] := 3 instead of a(4)
:=
> >3.
>
> good point.
>
> since we are making changes, can I have this change also: how about adding
> "()" to function and procedure calls, even though there are no parameters
> being passed?
>
> I find it more clear to see
>
> pkg.foo();

Yeah! I really miss those vestigal parens. Just to make it even, we could
require a '()' around constants so that we don't loose source portability
between constants and functions when the change is made.

And while we're making silly changes whose only non-debatable effect will be
to break older code, I have a few ideas myself:

Why do we call tasks "task" when they are really threads? That's confusing.
Let's change the name of the keyword to "thread".

Also, why do we need an "end" keyword? I prefer Draco and the sh shell's way
of just spelling the starting keyword backwards. That should be fixed!

Oh yeah. I don't like the way arrays have the last index vary fastest instead
of the first index. I personally find that much less clear, so of course it
has to be changed too.

The comment introducer is also confusing. "--" implies something is being
taken away from the source, when really you are trying to *add* something
when you comment your code. Therefore "++" should be used instead.


(note: Transcripts of this posting are available for the sarcasm-impaired.
Please send your checks or money-orders for $5 US to the email address listed
at the top of the posting).

--
T.E.D.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own