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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b5ab7c96b188b59e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-13 08:44:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!peernews-us.colt.net!newsfeed.news2me.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny01.gnilink.net.POSTED!0f19ed38!not-for-mail From: "Frank J. Lhota" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: The "()" operator revisited. X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 16:44:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.203.203.2 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny01.gnilink.net 1074012268 151.203.203.2 (Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:44:28 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:44:28 EST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4368 Date: 2004-01-13T16:44:28+00:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" wrote in message news:dmc700tmurmei4u19nof44803bv19f6d6o@4ax.com... > More specifically, how would it be matched against a formal > generic array parameter? That is far more ambitious than this proposal. The basic idea of this proposal is to allow array indexing notation for collections. For example, assume that we have a hash table that maps employee names to employee records. It would be nice if we could define "()" and "():=" for this hash table so that we could write something like this: declare Rec : Employee_Record_Hash_Table; begin ... Rec( "Johnson" ) := This_Rec; Display( The_Rec => Rec( "Smith" ) ); ... end; To get something that could match a generic array parameter would require a lot of restrictions on abstract arrays, in particular that the indice types would have to be abstract discrete types. This would rule out abstract arrays such as what we see in this example.