Seriously, what would be the benefit of adding it? Compatibility for some existing code, or the guarantee that such records will not contain any methods, or anything else?
Nothing more than a clarification (not wanting OOP methods, but the type extension only)
I currently don't see an easy way out. Unless someone has a suggestion, I think that kills it (i.e., there must be a syntactic difference between "inheritable" and normal records).
You are right, there must be a be a syntactic difference between "inheritable" and normal records. So, what about:
T = EXTENSIBLE RECORD x, y: INTEGER END T0 = RECORD (T) z: REAL END T1 = RECORD (T) w: LONGREAL END
Regards,
Adriaan van Os
Adriaan van Os wrote:
I currently don't see an easy way out. Unless someone has a suggestion, I think that kills it (i.e., there must be a syntactic difference between "inheritable" and normal records).
You are right, there must be a be a syntactic difference between "inheritable" and normal records. So, what about:
T = EXTENSIBLE RECORD x, y: INTEGER END T0 = RECORD (T) z: REAL END T1 = RECORD (T) w: LONGREAL END
Actually, I don't like adding new keywords (even if only context-dependent) too much. Any other suggestions perhaps? (`record ()' just came to my mind ... ;-)
Frank
-
Adriaan van Os -
Frank Heckenbach