OpenEuphoria

[POLL RESULT] Typing within a Type

• Posted by Peter Robinson <indorlaw at y?hoo.com.a?> Sep 15, 2007
• 548 views

Hi all

Here are the results of the poll "Typing elements within a Type".

1.	Do you support the introduction of syntax in one of the following forms to
allow a programmer to declare the types of elements within a user-defined type
based on a sequence?

	[ANSWER YES OR NO]

	Variation A1:

type customer( sequence x )
   fields
      integer x[1]
      sequence x[2]
      sequence x[3]
   end fields
   -- insert other code here
end type


Variation B1:

type customer( sequence x )
   fields
      integer  -- x[1] is assumed
      sequence -- x[2] is assumed
      sequence -- x[3] is assumed
   end fields
   -- insert other code here
end type

RESULT Q1:

YES = 5
NO = 6


2.	Regardless of your answer to the previous question:-

  	(a)	which variation do you prefer? {ANSWER A1 or B1]

   	(b)   	would you support the introduction of both together? 
	[ANSWER YES OR NO]

RESULT 2(a):

A1 = 3
B1 = 8

RESULT 2(b)

YES = 1
NO = 10

3.	Regardless of your previous answers, do you support the introduction of
syntax of the same kind but with naming of elements, like this:
	[ANSWER YES or NO]

	Variation A2:

type customer( sequence x )
   fields
      integer  x[1] id
      sequence x[2] name
      sequence x[3] address
   end fields
   -- other code here
end type


Variation B2:

type customer( sequence x )
   fields
      integer  id       -- x[1] is assumed
      sequence name     -- x[2] is assumed
      sequence address  -- x[3] is assumed
   end fields
   -- other code here
end type

RESULT 3:

YES = 8
NO = 2
ABSTENTION = 1

4. 	Regardless of your answer to the previous question:-

(a)	which variation do you prefer? {ANSWER A2 or B2]

  	(b)   would you support the introduction of both together?
        	 [ANSWER YES OR NO]

RESULT 4(a)

A2 = 3
B2 = 8


RESULT 4(b)

YES = 1
NO = 10

5. 	Regardless of your previous answers, if syntax with naming were introduced,
would you prefer the elements in an object declared with this type to be
accessible by:-
	[ANSWER a or b]

  	(a)   dot access e.g. customer_x.name; or

  	(b)   subscript/indexes e.g. customer_x[name]

RESULT 5:

a = 6.5
b = 3.5
abstention = 1

PS. Matt voted for both.

6. 	Regardless of your previous answers, if such syntax were introduced (with or
	without naming), would you prefer it to imply: [ANSWER a or b]
   
  	 (a)   length(x) = 3 -- the interpreter would enforce this

       	  -- or merely

  	 (b)   length(x) >= 3?

RESULT 6:

a = 5
b = 5
abstention = 1

Thanks to all who contibuted.

Cheers
Peter Robinson