Re: Records that could be arrays
- From: Justin Gombos <rpbkbq.xax.gld@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:37:47 GMT
On 2006-02-23, Jean-Pierre Rosen <rosen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I beg to disagree here. Arrays are for *iterative* structures, if
you don't have a for loop over an array, it should be a record.
In most cases you don't know at the time you code the type whether
you'll use a loop; and records offer no advantages either way. While
limitations can be quite useful when they apply to visibility or
access, I see no advantage to limiting the expressive power that
arrays have.
The fact that all components are of the same type may be an accident
that changes during program evolution.
Good point.
--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.
.
- References:
- Records that could be arrays
- From: Justin Gombos
- Re: Records that could be arrays
- From: Jean-Pierre Rosen
- Records that could be arrays
- Prev by Date: Re: Records that could be arrays
- Next by Date: Re: Records that could be arrays
- Previous by thread: Re: Records that could be arrays
- Next by thread: Re: Records that could be arrays
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|