Sven Barth wrote:
That's a good point, although obviously ordering would be lost. After
I'd tinkered with it for a while I concluded that it was probably
related to the discussion of tuples a few weeks ago.
Not really.
Also the principial components are already available in the compiler so
in theory (!) one could implement this. Array constructors (the "[...]"
notation) is already used for open array parameters
Although if I understand things correctly that's for the specific case
of a parameter passed to a procedure of function, not for the operand of
a redefined operator such as := even though the definition looks like a
function.
and array
initialization is already possible for named dynamic arrays in the form
of the delphi compatible "TMyDynamicArrayType.Create(1, 2, 3, 4, 5);"
(yes, I think this is a bad choice of implementing it and comes probably
from Delphi.NET :( )
So it might be able to do it with a type helper, at the cost of looking
like a function rather than like an ordinary assignment.
Of course one place where what I'm playing with gets hairy is in
overlaid operator definition: I'm having to define e.g. + for a pair of
1-D dynamic arrays, a pair of 2-D dynamic arrays and so on. If I
understand things correctly it's not possible to define a generalised
dynamic array parameter where the dimension (number of axes/indexes) as
well as the rank (range of each index) is undefined.
--
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
