On Mar 23, 2007, at 10:31 PM, Daniel Stenning wrote: > Your alternativ only applies because Guyren chose a bad example to > use, > since there just happens to be a date type.
Pick an example and I'd probably still whip out a lightweight class with a few properties to return one instance of Return a tuple like many other languages have which in RB is roughly a dictionary and return one of those and you have almost the right thing Make it a real TUPLE class with operator lookups tat give nil/o back if the item does not exist Done > I am with Guyren on this one. I can think of many instances where > his FR > would be useful. And if people don't like this style there is nothing > forcing them to use it. I agree with Andy that this should be rightly placed way down on the priority list _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
