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: 2002-02-27 21:29:43 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: 27 Feb 2002 21:29:43 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <9ff447f2.0202272129.2bafcce8@posting.google.com>
References: <9ff447f2.0202241719.446bf17b@posting.google.com>
 <3C7A8668.50BC257B@cl.cilas.net>
 <5ee5b646.0202262054.258490de@posting.google.com>
 <3c7c9767.727156@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 210.186.172.146
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1014874183 27237 127.0.0.1 (28 Feb 2002 05:29:43
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Feb 2002 05:29:43 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20550
Date: 2002-02-28T05:29:43+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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