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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00,
	HK_RANDOM_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ffc9e2fe760c58fd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trnddc04.POSTED!20ae255c!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
From: Justin Gombos <rpbkbq.xax.gld@uluv.kbq>
Subject: Re: Records that could be arrays
References: <WBaLf.18619$HU.13588@trnddc04> <btujtd.ojo.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Linux)
Message-ID: <LUiLf.19646$HU.19103@trnddc04>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:37:47 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.149.87.138
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: trnddc04 1140701867 141.149.87.138 (Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:37:47 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 08:37:47 EST
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3105
Date: 2006-02-23T13:37:47+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2006-02-23, Jean-Pierre Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr> wrote:
>
> I beg to disagree here. Arrays are for *iterative* structures, if
> you don't have a for loop over an array, it should be a record.

In most cases you don't know at the time you code the type whether
you'll use a loop; and records offer no advantages either way.  While
limitations can be quite useful when they apply to visibility or
access, I see no advantage to limiting the expressive power that
arrays have.

> The fact that all components are of the same type may be an accident
> that changes during program evolution.

Good point.

-- 
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.