On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 13:32, Majorinc, Kazimir wrote:
> Steve asked why not use structures, for example. X:=f(X) instead
> x1|...|x10=f(x1,..,x10)
>
> Replacement of every x1|...|x10:=f(x1,...,x10) with X:=f(X) seems excelent
> if X is some structure that could be used on many places, but if it has
> sense only for that single function f, then I believe there is no better
> alternative, otherwise one needs either
>
> X:=f([ro, phi, sigma, D, ...]) #it is not always x1,x2...
> ro:=X[1]
> phi:=X[2]
> sigma:=X[3]
> ...
> or to carry X through whole procedure.
That's a good point, but aren't they related in some
way if a single function wants to alter all their values?
I was thinking along the lines of something like:
record graph(ro, phi, sigma,...)
...
graph := f(graph) # assignment is redundant in this example!
... # rest of code references graph.ro, graph.phi, etc.
which is your suggestion to carry X through the whole procedure,
of course - which, if ro, phi, etc *are* related may not be
a bad thing.
You really have my curiousity up! What problem domain are
you working in?
--
Steve Wampler -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota
monax materiam possit materiari?
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by OSDN developer relations
Here's your chance to show off your extensive product knowledge
We want to know what you know. Tell us and you have a chance to win $100
http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?HRPT1X3RYQNC5V4MLNSV3E54
_______________________________________________
Unicon-group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group
