[fpc-devel] RFC: Support for new type "tuple" v0.1

[Alexander Klenin]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Paul Ishenin <paul.ishenin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 27.01.13, 1:43, Sven Barth wrote:
>>
>> Based on the results of the "for-in-index" thread I've decided to come
>> up with a draft for the Tuple type which is thought by many people to be
>> a better alternative to "for-in-index".
> I think it is big overkill to implement a new base type for such a small
> task as returning a key in for-in loop.
Of course. But note that in this thread, many more uses of tuples
(which I do NOT want to make a type -- see my previous mail for
lengthy explanation why).
Some of the uses are: record and array constructors, adaptation of
inconvenient signatures,
better support for "return code" style of error handling, etc.

> And (for Michael) I don't see any beauty in this. Imo, initial index
> extension is much more beauty than suggested here (a,b,c) := d;
> constructions.
I have a compromise suggestion:
Implement for-index extension with the syntax:
for (k, v) in a do
this syntax is forward-compatible with both tuples proposals,
is simple to do (basically, already done -- only a small change in
parsing is required)
and will give immediate benefit regardless of outcome of larger discussion.

--
Alexander S. Klenin