Re: Question for the folks who designed Ada95

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1417 bytes --]

In article <7g72rf$hjh3@ftp.kvaerner.com>,
  "Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen" <tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.no>
wrote:
> What would a(5) := 4;

if a represents a function from an abstract point of view,
it does not mean a blithering thing. The fact that a is
implemented as an array is irrelevant. Indeed presumably
a reasonable choice for implementing a conceptual function
as an array would be to use a constant array, where the
above assignment would be illegal.

Which in my opinion voids the function opposition to the
common convention of using square brackets for array
indices.

There is no such *common* convention. There are *two*
common conventions in this case () and [], and plenty
of examples of languages using both (for example, Fortran,
PL/1, COBOL, Ada, all use (), and Algol derived languages
tend to use []).

But to call one of these common is simply tunnel vision.
You cannot argue this point on the basis of what is common.
Sure, for a given person (I assume you grew up in a C
heritage) one usage may seem more natural [the brackets
seem more natural to me because I am used to them from
Algol-68], but that's not a useful way to argue.

The referential transparency argument is a quite reasonable
one, and your assignment example does not refute it!


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