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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Latest suggestion for 202x
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 13:24:13 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Message-ID: <ln8stuk7pu.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <728c4668-8fa0-4a57-a502-2bf476fc3940@googlegroups.com>
	<4908c3e3-18dc-4953-bf26-46f160d2ebfd@googlegroups.com>
	<9dcf22a2-2255-4089-b1f0-93e31448415e@googlegroups.com>
	<86h88obeu0.fsf@gaheris.avalon.lan>
	<39e749cd-de5c-44fa-b8ec-50d36f3bd52c@googlegroups.com>
	<qe8b41$pji$1@gioia.aioe.org> <lnef3rnb8d.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
	<qeh0sh$3rd$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk> <qei8ps$nec$1@gioia.aioe.org>
	<lnd0j6kdsl.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <qej8gm$1b40$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="caa34a360db6aaf02b280eb2c1355383";
	logging-data="16565"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/MSZJo0apHFqMJYNl1XsmV"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:M9shx1kHFR+cD3TQt9j0lGN9jMg=
	sha1:TD2TzmwzOIWK3LlCRGcaGWNQ7os=
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56705
Date: 2019-06-21T13:24:13-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> On 2019-06-21 20:12, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> I *can't* replace A by a function without modifying the code that uses
>> it.
>
> In short if I can't do something then I don't need it, sour grapes...
>
>> I suppose containers weaken that argument
>
> No, it is no argument regardless.
>
> If Ada has problems with array abstraction, and it has, that is 
> irrelevant to the point that this is the *same* abstraction.
>
> A language that syntactically distinguish array calls and function calls 
> breaks the abstraction or lacks it completely.

Is breaking that abstraction such a bad thing?  Why *should* array
indexing and function calls be treated as the same thing?  What about
record component selection?  What operations *aren't* function calls?

But please don't overestimate how much I care about this.  In my
opinion, it's really not that big a deal.  I personally like brackets
better than parentheses for array indexing, but I have no particular
problem with Ada's choice.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */