Sven Barth wrote:
Hello together!
Based on the results of the "for-in-index" thread I've decided to come
up with a draft for the Tuple type which is thought by many people to be
a better alternative to "for-in-index".
Nice, but I've got reservations about making tuples compatible with
dynamic arrays (or at least, any more compatible than a dynamic array is
with a normal array).
I also note Alexander's earlier
> ZEROES: array [1..10] of Integer = (0, 0, ..., 0);
> ...
> (x, y, z) := Tuple(ZEROES);
which I'm afraid I really don't like since that sort of thing is too
easily misinterpreted as making the language indeterminate. I'd vote for
having implicit compatibility between a single element and a tuple i.e.
something like
> (x, y, z) := Tuple(0);
provided that x, y and z are all the same type. Granted that the same
effect can be had by overlaying the assignment operator but this would
save having to use per-element assignment or an intermediate array.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
