In our previous episode, Sven Barth said: > > In a quick read, I cannot see any limitations to the type used for > > a tuple-element except that it behaves like "file of..." > > > > So that would mean a record type (or other non variant compatible type) > > would qualify? > > Whether there should be restrictions of types could be added to the open > issues as I'd want to have at least equality operators working for > tuples and thus we need to think about something for records... (as a > solution one could require that a "=" operator for records must be in scope) > > But without that problem in mind I had wanted to allow every type for > tuple elements (even tuples). > > Out of curiosity: Do you see this positive or negative?
To be frank, I'm not interested in the whole shebang. It reeks too much like first wanting an extension, and then thinking of one. But, like you, when it is being done, it should be done decent, and IMHO using array of variant (or tvarrec) as implementation vehicle is limiting the feature too much. Either good, or not. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
