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