OpenEuphoria

[POLL] Typing elements within a Type

• Posted by Peter Robinson <indorlaw at yahoo.?om.a?> Aug 29, 2007
• 586 views

Hello all

The next poll is presented below.

There is no strict time limit on the poll. You can argue as long as you want,
but please do so in a different thread from this POLL thread. If you want to make
sure I allow enough time, just say clearly in this thread what you want (and post
your arguments elsewhere).

Votes in the poll are limited to the specific questions asked.

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

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]

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

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]

5. Regardless of your previous answers, if syntax with naming were introduced,
would you prefer the elements in an object declarded 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]

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?

COMMENTS:

The questions have been derived from a thread started by Salix on 19/8/07
entitled "Type - Start Again". Since that thread, a poll has supported the
introduction of syntax like the following (though not yet implemented):

   sequence of integer
   sequence of sequence of integer

If introduced, such syntax could be available in the examples either in the
parameter of the type or in the field block. E.g.

   type customer( sequence of sequence x ) -- etc

   -- OR

   type customer( sequence x )
      fields:
         sequence of integer x[1] -- or equivalent for variation B.
          -- etc

This may be relevant to your consideration of the questions.

Regards
Peter Robinson