On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 07:39, Kostas Oikonomou wrote: > Just a clarification on the proposed syntax: Clint, do you mean > var:type::default > as an alternative to Steve's > var:type=default? > > Also, whichever form is eventually adopted, I assume the new syntax will allow > you to write the procedure call > p( , , ,a, ,b) > as > p(x=a, z=b) > > Correct? That would be an improvement in itself. > > Kostas
I don't think so - the syntax is actually in the procedure definition, not the call and so wouldn't apply to the above. The above is also ambiguous (couldn't use x=a in the call because that's a legitimate expression already). -- Steve Wampler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ------------------------------------------------------- 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
