Re: Why is it Called a Package?

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>]

Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> writes:

> 
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2000, Robert A Duff wrote:
> > Geoff Bull <geoff@research.canon.com.au> writes:
> > 
> > > Isn't it a little bit late to be arguing about this?
> > [notation for ".all"]
> 
> So, your preference would be to replace ".all" by "^" and make
> explicit dereferencing mandatory? 

I'm saying that if I were to design a language from scratch, that's what
I'd do.  Or, equivalently, that's what I wish the original designers of
Ada 83 had done.  I am certainly not advocating any change to Ada, Ada
0X, Ada 1X, or whatever.

> > Only if you think Ada 95 is the final word in programming language
> > design.  ;-)
> 
> No, that would be Ada 0X :-)

;-)

> I think if the syntax were to be redone I'd like the issue of "()" versus 
> "[]" for array indexing to be reexamined.

I don't think the syntax of Ada is going to be redone at this point; nor
should it.  We've discussed () vs [] here before, and I somewhat agree
with you, but there are arguments both ways, and anyway I don't think it
makes sense to change things.

By the way, the () vs [] debate for array indexing has good arguments on
both sides, but what about aggregates?  It's really a shame that you
can't write a zero-element or one-element positional aggregate in Ada,
and the reason has to do with silly character-set issues.

- Bob