oop's dot notation

4.28: bk.adda/ada05`oop/why is dot notation needed?:
. didn't ada have a problem with needing oop's x.f
to avoid a redundancy problem with f(x) ?
. 05's rationale for oop syntax changes
is not compelling in adda's context:
. they noted that x.f can look a lot neater than f(x);
esp'ly in math formulae;
but, adda allows f x * ...
which means the same as f(x) * ... .
. they liked the fact that components and primitives
could be accessed with the same syntax .
. what should adda say x`f means?
the possessive character (`)
was supposed to remind one that
some modifications could be happening;
and, to offer a c.lang convenience like (x+= b)
-- which means x= x+b --
adda offers x`+ b .