John wrote:
array(0..Some_constant key_word_or_directive ) of ....
Option 1:
Reads much better as
MyArray: calculated array of TMyType = (value1, value2, ..);
Option 2:
Having the IDE check the length of the array by counting the values and
adjusting the upper bounds constant is a perfectly good idea. Like you
said, it means the compiler remains intact without any required changes.
it also enhances the value of the IDE.
Provided, of course, that it is a manually invoked operation and/or
optional setting.
On the zero-lower-bond question: I personally have become totally used
to 0 as a lower bound on arrays and use them all the time. I even name
the variables used to index into the array XYZOffset since they are
offsets from the beginning of the array. So, no problem for me to fix
the lower bound at 0!
--
Doug C.
-----
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
