Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sei!jbg
From: jbg@sei.cmu.edu (John Goodenough)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada functions versus arrays (i.e. () vs [] )
Message-ID: <6372@fy.sei.cmu.edu>
Date: 8 Mar 90 14:21:21 GMT
References: <184@trwacs.UUCP> <598@software.software.org> <5619@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <848@enea.se>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University (Software Engineering Institute), Pgh, PA
Lines: 22
In-reply-to: sommar@enea.se's message of 6 Mar 90 19:13:21 GMT


In article Re: Ada functions versus arrays (i.e. () vs [] ) of 6 Mar 90
19:13:21 GMT sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:

>I think the main reason that Ada does not use [] for array
>indexing is that symbols like () are far easier to read
>than using letters like C does. Of course Ada could have
>used something like (..) as Pascal permit, but it feels
>clumsy. And the flexibility aspect of being able to switch
>between an array and a function is not to be disregarded.

All these are plausible reasons, but the real reason is appallingly mundane --
the requirements specification for Ada directed that all Ada programs be
representable in a small character set, the basic_characters, and this
character set does not include [ and ].  (Although the possible use of
brackets was discussed at at least one design review meeting, given the
character set requirement, the possibility was dismissed almost immediately.)


-- 
John B. Goodenough					Goodenough@sei.cmu.edu
Software Engineering Institute				412-268-6391