On 10/1/07, skaller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At present
>
> struct X { py: &Y; };
> struct Y { a : int; };
>
> px = new X (new Y);
> println$ px . py . a;
>
> Well why not:
>
> println$ px . a;
>
> ?
I'm not crazy about this. At first glance, I'd want it to be a bug
because say you had this:
struct X { py: &Y; nam:string; }; // notice the typo
struct Y { name : string; };
px = new X (new Y ("foo"), "bar");
println $ px . name;
I would mean px.name to be "bar", not "foo", and would prefer the
compiler to say that i made a typo instead of just finding another
"name" to return.
Or am I not understanding you?
I am fine with auto-dereferencing though. It reminds me of val, var,
and ref in a function definition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Felix-language mailing list
Felix-language@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/felix-language
