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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d00514eb0749375b X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Shark8 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: initialize an array (1-D) at elaboration using an expression based on the index? Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 18:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <1f6bad81-e3d2-428b-a1a0-45acc7f96f68@m7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <9df4e5eb-fba7-4e8c-ba44-cd1ad4081d3b@26g2000yqv.googlegroups.com> <985a178c-8dfc-48af-9871-76a64750a571@l14g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 174.28.254.71 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1288576513 4444 127.0.0.1 (1 Nov 2010 01:55:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 01:55:13 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=174.28.254.71; posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101026 Firefox/3.6.12 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0E),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15084 Date: 2010-10-31T18:55:13-07:00 List-Id: On Oct 31, 6:45=A0pm, Phil Clayton wrote: > On Oct 31, 6:47=A0pm, Shark8 wrote: > > > Ah, if you think that'll trigger "drowning in parentheses"-fear then > > you should probably stay away from LISP. > > I do. =A0On the subject of LISP, I saw a great talk recently on Clojure > (think LISP on JVM) containing what is now one of my all time > favourite slides:http://blog.fogus.me/2010/10/25/fertile-ground-the-roots= -of-clojure/ > Go to slide 21 (of 75). Heh; slightly amusing. > > As for a better syntax, I'm not sure; but then again I'm not sure that > > an "x:=3D y if b else z"-style of expression is actually needed given > > that we have declare-blocks. > > Are loop statements actually needed given the presence of conditional > statements and goto statements? :) Well, since we started talking about LISP, strictly-speaking no, you don't need loops. While LISP is a bit different and parenthesis-heavy, it is certainly a high-level language; that you need to use a different style of thinking than you're used to is slightly irrelevant. C & C++ have loops but some VERY good arguments can be made that they are *NOT* high-level languages; that there are a significant portion of C programmers who recognize C as "basically assembler with some syntax-sugar" reinforces such an assertion. {That same group is quite likely to have the idea that C is better for systems-programming because it is law-level.}