Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> a �crit dans le message :
Pine.BSF.4.21.0004061305320.6588-100000@shell5.ba.best.com...
> I think if the syntax were to be redone I'd like the issue of "()" versus
> "[]" for array indexing to be reexamined. Then we could also think about
> some syntactic sugar for overloading "[]" as in C++. The restrictions on
> the character set that were part of the original Ada requirements don't
> make a lot of sense to me now, though the restriction to ASCII is OK.

I don't think we want that. A very nice consequence here is that you can
easily change an abstraction from:

   package P is
      Some_Value : array (1 .. 10) of Integer;
      --  first quick implementation using basic array
   end P;

to

   package P is
      function Some_Value (N : in Positive) return Integer;
      --  real implementation using a complex structure
   end P;

(or the other way around) without modifying all client code.

I really don't see what would be gained by using "[]"... a more
C/C++ syntax :)

Pascal.

--

--|------------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                               Team-Ada Member |
--|                                                           |
--| EDF-DER-IPN-SID- T T I                                    |
--|                       Intranet: http://cln46gb            |
--| Bureau N-023            e-mail: p.obry@der.edf.fr         |
--| 1 Av G�n�ral de Gaulle  voice : +33-1-47.65.50.91         |
--| 92141 Clamart CEDEX     fax   : +33-1-47.65.50.07         |
--| FRANCE                                                    |
--|------------------------------------------------------------
--|
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--|
--|   "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"