Hi,

>> 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?
It means we should name it x:__tonumber(), which 
looks a little strange. Plus, it forces using 
OOP syntax in non-OOP code.

But, indeed the question is, that when such new 
casting syntax can have an importance; is it needed?

F.e. in Python which is a strongly type language, 
there is no casting, just conversion functions.

Brgds,
Viktor

_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB)
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour

Reply via email to