Re: Question for the folks who designed Ada95

[RSWhite@nospam.somewhere.ia.us (Robert S. White)]

In article <7g8390$225c@drn.newsguy.com>, bill@nospam says...
>
>All what we know, is that looking at something written as a[i] tells 
>right away that it is an array, while with a(i) you are not sure what 
>it is in Ada.

  And just why do you need to know the implementation when you are just
an oo user of the object?   Can we say "loosely coupled" here?

>If Iam maintaining someone else's code, it helps me to understand the code 
>faster that way.

   Ah but a maintainer _hopefully_ has a smart editor/browser that knows
how to quickly pop up the body's source text - like "visit body" under
Rational Apex.

>Someone argument about them modifying the array to a function and not breaking
>someone else code (becuase in Ada "()" is used instead of "[]") is a 
>very weak argument.

  But, but,  IMHO it is a good argument!  The users of the object/package
don't have to edit their source code when the implementation changes.  No
module version control check outs, edits, check ins, code inspections, etc.
Just a new full up link and integration/regression tests are required.  A
lot less staff effort and expense!

> In the real world, one would design their data to 
>be hidden from users, and have access methods to read/write to it, (can we
>says OO here?) and so, users would never care if you used arrays or 
>functions anyway. you should use 'messages' :)

  Nope...don't use "messages", instead just use accessor functions.
Seems like my "real world" and yours differs :)
_____________________________________________________________________
Robert S. White         -- An embedded systems software engineer
e-mail reply to reverse of ( add .'s ):  net mcleodusa shift2 r white
             or do a "Reply To All" for direct eMailed cc'd followups.