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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,83568e4f0ce7998e
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Received: by 10.66.77.131 with SMTP id s3mr7932910paw.24.1351321896285;
        Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:11:36 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 s9ni51365pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news.glorb.com!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Alternative syntax for function definitions?
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:11:28 +0200
Organization: cbb software GmbH
Message-ID: <aofcgnli1bud$.1ieeg4tvf6wt0.dlg@40tude.net>
References: <op.wmtq0sipule2fv@cardamome>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: pSb85Ij4EqcuHDcWtw64BQ.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-10-27T09:11:28+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 08:30:18 +0200, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Just a silly idea I have sometime.
> 
> You know the question of having type at the left or at the right of a  
> declaration, used to be discussed when comparing Eiffel or Pascal like  
> syntax, to C like syntax. One argument is that “I : Integer;” is more  
> natural than “int i;” because it do as a dictionary do, putting the  
> defined element at the left. I have the feeling the question could  
> similarly apply to the syntax used for function definition. I feel  
> sometime, being able to write something as below, could be more readable:
> 
>      function P return T of (A1, A2, ...);
> 
> What's your feeling about such an alternative notation?

I : Integer; declares an object of type Integer. Function declares an
anonymous function type and a singleton object, so the difference.

> I feel it would be the most relevant when having a list of accessors  
> functions, like in
> 
>     function P1 (A : A_Type) return T1;
>     function P2 (A : A_Type) return T2;
>     function P3 (A : A_Type) return T3;
>     function P4 (A : A_Type) return T4;
>     function P5 (A : A_Type) return T5;

The type A_Type should simply implement a record interface:

   type A_Type is ... and record
      P1 : T1;
      P2 : T2;
      ...
      P5 : T5;
   end record;
   ...
private
   ... -- functions implementing "components" P1..P5

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de