Re: Why not using [] instead of () for array?

[byhoe@greenlime.com (Adrian Hoe)]

dmitry@elros.cbb-automation.de (Dmitry A. Kazakov) wrote in message news:<3c7c9767.727156@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
> On 26 Feb 2002 20:54:03 -0800, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote:
> 
> >Toshitaka Kumano <kumano@cl.cilas.net> wrote in message news:<3C7A8668.50BC257B@cl.cilas.net>...
> >
> >> From a mathematical view, The syntax,
> >>    Output := Mapping (Input);  
> >> can be read "Input maps onto Input".
> >
> >Kumano-san states the mathematical argument very nicely
> >here. Personally I tend to agree with this point of view.
> 
> Yes, however analogy is not complete in Ada. At least three things
> spoil this nice equivalence. For arrays one can do:
> 
> 1. Result assignment.  Mapping (Input) := Output
> 
> 2. Index ranges. Subset := Mapping (From..To)
> 
> 3. Aggregates
> 
> This by no means invalidates the argument of course. Rather opposite,
> one should support access results, user-defined index types (=>ranges,
> slices), user-defined aggregates ...
> 
> ... and maybe user-defined []-operator (:-))
> 
> Regards,
> Dmitry Kazakov


Kumano-san mathematical arguments are agreeable (at least with me:).
And Kazakov's user-defined []-operator (proposed?) seems acceptable
since Pascal provides alternative digraphs (. for [     :)

At least, I get to know of this ASCII problem with programming
languages.

Anyway, I am comfortable with () and I will know to handle this
question if ever comes to me again. :)

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