On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 16:40, Clint Jeffery wrote: > No, I meant to keep var:type:default when both are present, but to change > the current ambiguous syntax that allows both var:type and var:default when > only one of the two is present. var:type would be retained but defaulting > with no type coercion would be written as var::default
I have no issues with var[:[type][:default]] as the syntax, incidently - despite by personal preference of var[:[type]][=default], which I happily admit is solely because of the resulting ability to write: procedure foo(x:=0) (I don't expect to use the type check very often, as I prefer to handle type check errors manually [often without producing a run-time error, which always seems like a pretty intense response to a problem!].) -- 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
