Re: Latest suggestion for 202x

[Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> On 2019-06-21 22:24, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> "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?
>
> Yes, because abstraction is useful. Arrays have no "physical"
> meaning. It is always an artifact of software design, some
> implementation detail, not to expose.
>
>> Why *should* array
>> indexing and function calls be treated as the same thing?
>
> Because they model the same thing, a mapping, when arrays come in
> consideration.

I disagree.  Array indexing operations refer to elements of an array
object.  Function calls yield a value, and can have side effects.

>> What about
>> record component selection?
>
> Same. It is not mapping of ordered 1st class object to 1st class
> object in this case, but surely the syntax sugar of record member
> selection must be same for records and functions. And it is, since Ada
> 2005 started to support dotted notation:
>
>    R.X  -- Record member *or* call to primitive X of R or ...

So would you prefer "R.X" to be written as "R(X)" (or perhaps "X(R)")?

>> What operations *aren't* function calls?
>
> Ideally there should be none. All built-in syntax forms must be
> available for user-defined operations. Ada suffers greatly when it
> violates this design principle, e.g. consider "and then", "range",
> "in", "'Image" etc.

If you want Lisp, you know where to find it.

>> 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.
>
> In my view it is a language design problem. I have nothing against
> adding further types of brackets: {}, <>, || but they all must be
> user-defined.

-- 
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 */