I'm perfectly aware of the stuff one can do today in RB ! Its precisely the piece that does NOT work that I was referring to!!
I totally agree about using iterators to fix the remaining issues. Either that or give us some new operator overload types as a half way house. > This is the ONLY piece that does not work. No it isnt. FOR EACH is one issue - the other is to be able to address object instance "elements" by index DIRECTLY in array fashion without an accessor. I want to write x = myarray(index) where myarray is a class instance. Or myarray(index) = x There is no operator overload operator for array indexing. I would have to write x = myarray.Item(index) Or Or myarray.Item (index) = x // ( using the assigns keyword internally ) Howerver I think basically we are in agreement :) On 17/5/06 16:42, "Norman Palardy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All of this above is already possible with NO new operator required. > The methods I showed you earlier work and you can do this already. > >> For each bar in arr >> bar.foo() >> next > > This is the ONLY piece that does not work. > But adding an operator is not required. > An iterator would work here. At least it seem to in Java, C++, etc > without modifying those languages. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
