Przemyslaw, Przemysław Czerpak wrote:
> We have some initial code used for class declaration and strong typing but > it was never fully functional. Do we need strong typing to spot undeclared variables? > The last part is casting and here we probably have the biggest problem. > Now it's possible to use > <exp> AS <type> > i.e.: > > func f( x as usual ) as string > if valtype( x ) == "N" > x := str( x as numeric ) > elseif valtype( x ) != "C" > x := "" > endif > return x as string > What's the need to write x := str( x as numeric ) given that I'm calling str? It seems to me just a waste of typing, even more so given the previous valtype which confirms it is a number. > other method is using some new operator which will work well with PP. > I.e. instead of 'AS' we can use '.AS.' because expressions like > <exp> .AS. <type> are recognized by PP s single expression, i.e. > > ? x .as. numeric > > is well preprocessed by PP to: > > QOUT( x .as. numeric ) > I really don't like this solution, .Something. operators are logical for me, while this one would be different. I'd say, what about x:toNumber() to treat it like an (implicit) object? Maurilio. -- __________ | | | |__| Maurilio Longo |_|_|_|____| farmaconsult s.r.l. _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
