> In other words, if the number of elements on both sides of the expression
is the same you get a one-to-one correspondence but if the RHS only has a
single element it's expanded.
That's what I want to avoid because I love Pascal strictness :)
--
View this message in context:
http://free-pas
leledumbo wrote:
If Pascal /had/ to have some sort of multiple assignment, I'd have
thought borrowing an idea from Perl and doing something like
[a, b, c] := (d = e);
would have been minimally acceptable.
I would pick from Lua instead, it looks cleaner. Well... I'll make it
stricter though
> If Pascal /had/ to have some sort of multiple assignment, I'd have
thought borrowing an idea from Perl and doing something like
[a, b, c] := (d = e);
would have been minimally acceptable.
I would pick from Lua instead, it looks cleaner. Well... I'll make it
stricter though, by making the n
> I don't like a lot of C++ syntax but this one is interesting. You really
don't like it? :)
HELL NO! Most C/C++ programmers don't have any idea who will READ and
CONTINUE their work, and I'm one of those unlucky person who has to deal
with this stupid, error prone, unreadable, worthless "feature"
