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=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c7d533acec91ae16
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Question for the folks who designed Ada95
Date: 1999/04/28
Message-ID: <wcchfq0hisa.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 471913974
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <7g2qu4$ca4$1@usenet.rational.com>
 <7g3b5g$p92$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7g4ae3$hjh2@ftp.kvaerner.com>
 <3725C49E.8106A44B@aasaa.ofe.org> <7g4mrs$v5n$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <7g72rf$hjh3@ftp.kvaerner.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-04-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Tarjei Tj�stheim Jensen" <tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.no> writes:

> I don't mind if the function addicts still writes a(5) := 4, if I can write
> a[5] := 4.

I do (mind).  I like a[5] better, too, but it seems to me that having
both syntaxes is worse than having either one.  Suppose I'm used to
writing (and therefore reading) a[5] -- then I can't read other people's
code so easily, if they like the other convention.  Reading other
people's code is important.

- Bob
-- 
Change robert to bob to get my real email address.  Sorry.