On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 02:45, Clint Jeffery wrote:
> Well, we could have var:type, var:type:default, and var::default.
> Compared with var:type, var:type=default, and var=default, I don't
> see a huge difference, the main question is how heavily you weigh
> my "bad to overload =" rationale. I'd appreciate if Steve and
> some of y'all comment on this. Maybe there is a flaw in my alternative
> to Steve's fix, or maybe Steve's fix is just more attractive!
Heh, heh. One of the reasons I like the var:type=default is
that it should (depending on how it's implemented) allow
me to write:
procedure foo(x:=5)
which now looks just like the other initializations and
masks the overloading...
--
Steve Wampler -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The gods that smiled on your birth are now laughing out loud.
-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
_______________________________________________
Unicon-group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unicon-group
