On Sun, 27 Jan 2013, Paul Ishenin wrote:
27.01.13, 1:43, Sven Barth wrote:
Based on the results of the "for-in-index" thread I've decided to come
up with a draft for the Tuple type which is thought by many people to be
a better alternative to "for-in-index".
I think it is big overkill to implement a new base type for such a small task
as returning a key in for-in loop.
And (for Michael) I don't see any beauty in this. Imo, initial index
extension is much more beauty than suggested here (a,b,c) := d;
constructions.
Well, there we obviously differ in opinion.
To be clear: I am not a proponent of tuples. I can live without it.
But the "for in index" solves exactly 1 problem, and a very very very small one at that,
(in fact, I don't even think it is a problem) which can be solved in many different ways as well.
A tuple at least has the potential to solve more than one problem.
Oxygene and python have tuples. Maybe other languages too; I don't know.
So, if this very very very small maybe even non-existent problem must be soleved,
I prefer to do it with a tuple.
But hey, if you don't like tuples, and I don't like index:
We'll do without tuples and index.
I'll be perfectly happy. Many others undoubtedly too.
Till now I didn't hear you complain about the absence of index, so...
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
