Now *that* is ugly. It would take me quite a while to find out what
happens here.
Perhaps :min= was better?
Why making Pascal look like C instead of using C?
C also does not support this :(
And it does not have arbitrary array index ranges
In the example case I would prefer the original or write
In the real program I ended up with
if array1[array2[i]]>42 then
array1[array2[i]] := 42;
Then you have everything twice.
And if you have to change i to j, you might forget to change one
On 03/28/2013 06:26 PM, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Benito van der Zander wrote:
array1[array2[i]] := min(array1[array2[i]], 42);
Now, you need to repeat all the array indices.
Which is very ugly.
So there should be an alternative syntax, similar to += :
I.e.:
array1[array2[i]] min= 42;
Now *that* is ugly. It would take me quite a while to find out what
happens here.
What is assigned to what and when?
Why making Pascal look like C instead of using C?
In the example case I would prefer the original or write
if array1[array2[i]]>42 then
array1[array2[i]] := 42;
or if performance is realy an issue you I would use an intermediate
pointer to the array type:
var p : ^arrayelementtype;
p := @array1[array2[i]];
p^ := min(p^,42);
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
