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: 2002-02-26 16:50:06 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: byhoe@greenlime.com (Adrian Hoe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why not using [] instead of () for array?
Date: 26 Feb 2002 16:50:06 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <9ff447f2.0202261650.7d269e73@posting.google.com>
References: <9ff447f2.0202241719.446bf17b@posting.google.com>
 <a5ci16$9281@news.cis.okstate.edu>
 <5ee5b646.0202250639.5002d518@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.186.172.87
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1014771006 15695 127.0.0.1 (27 Feb 2002 00:50:06
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Feb 2002 00:50:06 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20485
Date: 2002-02-27T00:50:06+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote in message news:<5ee5b646.0202250639.5002d518@posting.google.com>...
> David Starner <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:<a5ci16$9281@news.cis.okstate.edu>...
> > [] 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 :-)


I could not find it in Google's archives. Any pointer? :-(

                              -- Adrian Hoe
                              -- http://greenlime.com/users/adrian.hoe