Re: Why is it Called a Package?

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN, Size: 2551 bytes --]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Samuel T. Harris wrote:
> Pascal Obry wrote:
> > Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> a écrit dans le message :
> > Pine.BSF.4.21.0004061305320.6588-100000@shell5.ba.best.com...
> > > I think if the syntax were to be redone I'd like the issue of "()" versus
> > > "[]" for array indexing to be reexamined. Then we could also think about
> > > some syntactic sugar for overloading "[]" as in C++. The restrictions on
> > > the character set that were part of the original Ada requirements don't
> > > make a lot of sense to me now, though the restriction to ASCII is OK.
> > 
> > I don't think we want that. A very nice consequence here is that you can
> > easily change an abstraction from:
> > 
> >    package P is
> >       Some_Value : array (1 .. 10) of Integer;
> >       --  first quick implementation using basic array
> >    end P;
> > 
> > to
> > 
> >    package P is
> >       function Some_Value (N : in Positive) return Integer;
> >       --  real implementation using a complex structure
> >    end P;
> > 
> > (or the other way around) without modifying all client code.

I didn't see Pascal's original message, but this is the original reason
given for this choice. I've never had to do this, and I don't find this 
reason compelling. It sure seems easy enough to wrap everything with
function calls if you want to enforce a uniform syntax in the client code.

> > I really don't see what would be gained by using "[]"... a more
> > C/C++ syntax :)

Readability suffers from using the () for both IMO. As I said though, this 
is not a discussion about a change to Ada but about a *new* Ada like
language. 

I think its unfortunate that anything connected with C or C++ causes such 
a reaction in Ada fans. Consider that for most programmers Ada elicits a
similar knee-jerk response. Remember, all programming languages suck :-)

> I'd rather see [] and {} be allowed as substitutions for ()
> in a similar way that ! of allowed for |, % is allowed for ",
> and : is allowed for #. Of course, just as %'s substituded for "
> have to be paired, so would {} and [] substitutions.

I don't like this idea. This would cause too many divergences in styles 
in the Ada community. 

> I see no compelling reason why array indexing
> must be syntactically different from function calls. 

Because they are different. 

"Some believe that we lacked the programming language to describe your 
 perfect world" 

 Agent Smith - The Matrix (1999)

-- Brian