Re: Alternative syntax for function definitions?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:49:04 +0200, Yannick Duch�ne (Hibou57) wrote:

> Le Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:11:28 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  
> <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a �crit:
>>> 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
> 
> You got the point (I was precisely thinking of functions define on private  
> type, that is, the record is not exposed), but unless I missed it, there  
> is nothing like a function implementing the access to a record component  
> in Ada.

I know. The point is that there are underlying concepts Ada's type system
fails to capture. The language was already suffered dearly from plastic
surgeries to get another one.

> I agree that would be the best, but less likely to be done (we  
> already have dotted notation for function designation, but only for tagged  
> types).

That is no problem. All types should have classes anyway. The dotted
notation itself is an implementation of some record interface.

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