Arioch wrote:
tcoq wrote
a laziness to software design: what you can't name you actually don't
design...
Guess you meant "don't want to" instead of "can't"
And You mean all the non-named arrays, don't you.
"var x: array[0..10] of integer; " is not only violating Pascal Report, but
also is twice lazy.
since one should name every part of design one should type like
type
SomeEnumSemanticName = 0..10;
SomeEnumMapSemanticName = array[SomeEnumSemanticName] of integer;
var x: SomeEnumMapSemanticName;
Except that not defining a distinct type emphasises that the array is
only being declared once, and is not being passed around as a parameter.
So I'd suggest that there are cases where the first example is
appropriate, except obviously that that ..10 is rarely if ever acceptable.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
