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