Le 24 mars 07 à 20:30 Soir, gary hayenga a écrit: > On Mar 24, 2007, at 12:20 PM, realbasic-nug- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> On Mar 23, 2007, at 9:48 PM, Guyren Howe wrote: >> >>> On Mar 23, 2007, at 7:23 PM, Arnaud Nicolet wrote: >>> >>>> In my opinion, this makes things less clear. Also, even if you hate >>>> ByRefs (that's also my case), there are "plenty" of other ways to >>>> return a value, so why bother making another (confusing) way? >>> >>> Because it's absurd overkill to define a new class as a way of >>> holding multiple values, when all that's going on is that you >>> need to >>> return multiple values from some computation. >>> >>> I love OOP. But often, it's just overkill. When *all* that's >>> going on >>> is that I'm performing some computation that generates multiple >>> values, I would like to just be able to return those multiple >>> values. >>> >>> Why should returning a single value be easy but multiple values be a >>> pain in the proverbial? I don't see anything special about returning >>> one value. >>> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> If you're looking for language additions to advocate for, multiple >> dispatch would be a better choice, because the need for it already >> exists in the language. >> >> Charles Yeomans > > I can't see why Arnaud doesn't just return a dictionary, which can > hold as many values or things of as many different types as he'd like.
Because I do ;-) I'm not the original poster. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
