1. [POLL] Sequences of types
Here is the first set of questions on which I propose a poll.
1. Do you support the introduction of syntax to allow the declaration of the
type of elements in a sequence in one of these forms [YES or NO]:-
Version A:
sequence of atom
sequence of integer
sequence of sequence
-- OR
Version B:
atom list
integer list
sequence list
2. Regardless of your anser to Q1, if one such method was adopted, which would
you prefer? [ANSWER: A or B]
3. Regardless of your answers to previous questions, if such syntax were
introduced, do you think it should be restricted to the parameter of a type
definition - e.g.
type user_type( sequence of integer )
-- OR
type user_type( integer list )
or permitted anywhere a regular type can be declared?
[ANSWER: RESTRICTED or UNRESTRICTED]
4. Regardless of your answers to earlier questions, if version A were
introduced, would you support it being extended beyond the first dimension of the
enclosing sequence, and if so, how many dimensions? e.g.
sequence of sequence of atom
[ANSWER: The no. of "of's" you would allow or UNRESTRICTED]
5. Regardless of your answers to earlier questions, if version B were
introduced, would you support it being extended beyond the first dimension of the
enclosing sequence, and if so, how many dimensions? e.g.
atom sequence list
-- OR
atom list list
-- the correct alternative for version B can be deicided later if necessary.
[ANSWER: The no. of type-words you would allow in one declaration or
UNRESTRICTED]
Please vote by providing answers as shown. Please do not post discussions to
this thread. If you need time or clarification, post your query to this thread.
Good luck and cheers to all
Peter Robinson
P.S. I have deliberately omitted the possibility sequence-of-objects because it
raises separate issues, which could become irrelevant depending on the result on
other questions. Your vote on these questions will NOT be a vote for or against
any sequence-of-objects syntax.
2. Re: [POLL] Sequences of types
1. YES
2. B
3. UNRESTRICTED
4. UNRESTRICTED
5. UNRESTRICTED
--
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
Skype name: derek.j.parnell
3. Re: [POLL] Sequences of types
1. NO
2. B
3. UNRESTRICTED
4. UNRESTRICTED
5. UNRESTRICTED
Salix
4. Re: [POLL] Sequences of types
my apologies.
in Q3, i made an error of transcription.
example should be:-
e.g.
type user_type( sequence of integer x )
-- OR
type user_type( integer list x )
peter
5. Re: [POLL] Sequences of types
1. YES
2. A
3. RESTRICTED
4. I'm not sure.
5. I'm not sure.
Regards,
Juergen
6. Re: [POLL] Sequences of types
1. YES
2. B
3. UNRESTRICTED
4. UNRESTRICTED
5. UNRESTRICTED
PeteS
7. Re: [POLL] Sequences of types
Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> Here is the first set of questions on which I propose a poll.
>
> 1. Do you support the introduction of syntax to allow the declaration of the
> type of elements in a sequence in one of these forms [YES or NO]:-
>
> Version A:
> sequence of atom
> sequence of integer
> sequence of sequence
>
> -- OR
>
> Version B:
> atom list
> integer list
> sequence list
>
YES
> 2. Regardless of your anser to Q1, if one such method was adopted, which would
> you prefer? [ANSWER: A or B]
>
B
> 3. Regardless of your answers to previous questions, if such syntax were
> introduced,
> do you think it should be restricted to the parameter of a type definition -
> e.g.
> type user_type( sequence of integer )
> -- OR
> type user_type( integer list )
>
> or permitted anywhere a regular type can be declared?
> [ANSWER: RESTRICTED or UNRESTRICTED]
>
RESTRICTED
> 4. Regardless of your answers to earlier questions, if version A were
> introduced,
> would you support it being extended beyond the first dimension of the
> enclosing
> sequence, and if so, how many dimensions? e.g.
>
> sequence of sequence of atom
>
> [ANSWER: The no. of "of's" you would allow or UNRESTRICTED]
>
UNRESTRICTED
> 5. Regardless of your answers to earlier questions, if version B were
> introduced,
> would you support it being extended beyond the first dimension of the
> enclosing
> sequence, and if so, how many dimensions? e.g.
>
> atom sequence list
> -- OR
> atom list list
> -- the correct alternative for version B can be deicided later if necessary.
>
> [ANSWER: The no. of type-words you would allow in one declaration or
> UNRESTRICTED]
>
UNRESTRICTED
> Please vote by providing answers as shown. Please do not post discussions to
> this thread. If you need time or clarification, post your query to this
> thread.
>
> Good luck and cheers to all
> Peter Robinson
>
> P.S. I have deliberately omitted the possibility sequence-of-objects because
> it raises separate issues, which could become irrelevant depending on the
> result
> on other questions. Your vote on these questions will NOT be a vote for or
> against
> any sequence-of-objects syntax.
8. Re: [POLL] Sequences of types
1: YES
2: A
3: RESTRICTED
4: 1
5: 1
9. Re: [POLL] Sequences of types
1: No
2: A
3: Unrestricted
4: 1
5: 1
Matt
10. Re: [POLL] Sequences of types
Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> 1. Do you support the introduction of syntax to allow the declaration of the
> type of elements in a sequence in one of these forms [YES]:-
>
> 2. Regardless of your anser to Q1, if one such method was adopted, which would
> you prefer? [A]
>
> 3. Regardless of your answers to previous questions, if such syntax were
> introduced,
> do you think it should be restricted to the parameter of a type definition -
> or permitted anywhere a regular type can be declared?
> [RESTRICTED]
>
> 4. Regardless of your answers to earlier questions, if version A were
> introduced,
> would you support it being extended beyond the first dimension of the
> enclosing
> sequence, and if so, how many dimensions? e.g.
> [1]
>
> 5. Regardless of your answers to earlier questions, if version B were
> introduced,
> would you support it being extended beyond the first dimension of the
> enclosing
> sequence, and if so, how many dimensions? e.g.
> [1]
11. Re: [POLL] Sequences of types
A problem is, that the questions of the poll are not asked properly,
since at least not all of them are indepentent of each other.
So I'll correct my voting:
1. if 3. = RESTRICTED then
YES
else
NO
end if
2. A
3. RESTRICTED
4. I'm not sure.
5. I'm not sure.
Regards,
Juerhgen
12. Re: [POLL] Sequences of types
1. YES
2. A
3. UNRESTRICTED
4. UNRESTRICTED
5. UNRESTRICTED
Bernie
My files in archive:
WMOTOR, XMOTOR, W32ENGIN, MIXEDLIB, EU_ENGIN, WIN32ERU, WIN32API
Can be downloaded here:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan
13. Re: [POLL] Sequences of types
Peter Robinson wrote:
> 1. Do you support the introduction of syntax to allow the declaration of the
> type of elements in a sequence in one of these forms [YES or NO]:-
>
> Version A:
> sequence of atom
> sequence of integer
> sequence of sequence
>
> -- OR
>
> Version B:
> atom list
> integer list
> sequence list
YES
> 2. Regardless of your anser to Q1, if one such method was adopted, which would
> you prefer? [ANSWER: A or B]
A
> 3. Regardless of your answers to previous questions, if such syntax were
> introduced,
> do you think it should be restricted to the parameter of a type definition -
> e.g.
> type user_type( sequence of integer )
> -- OR
> type user_type( integer list )
>
> or permitted anywhere a regular type can be declared?
> [ANSWER: RESTRICTED or UNRESTRICTED]
UNRESTRICTED
> 4. Regardless of your answers to earlier questions, if version A were
> introduced,
> would you support it being extended beyond the first dimension of the
> enclosing
> sequence, and if so, how many dimensions? e.g.
>
> sequence of sequence of atom
>
> [ANSWER: The no. of "of's" you would allow or UNRESTRICTED]
UNRESTRICTED
> 5. Regardless of your answers to earlier questions, if version B were
> introduced,
> would you support it being extended beyond the first dimension of the
> enclosing
> sequence, and if so, how many dimensions? e.g.
>
> atom sequence list
> -- OR
> atom list list
> -- the correct alternative for version B can be deicided later if necessary.
>
> [ANSWER: The no. of type-words you would allow in one declaration or
> UNRESTRICTED]
UNRESTRICTED
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
