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

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013, Paul Ishenin 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.
>
> 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.

Well, there we obviously differ in opinion.

To be clear: I am not a proponent of tuples. I can live without it.

But the "for in index" solves exactly 1 problem, and a very very very small one at that, 
(in fact, I don't even think it is a problem) which can be solved in many different ways as well.

A tuple at least has the potential to solve more than one problem.
Oxygene and python have tuples. Maybe other languages too; I don't know.

So, if this very very very small maybe even non-existent problem must be soleved, 
I prefer to do it with a tuple.

But hey, if you don't like tuples, and I don't like index: 
We'll do without tuples and index.

I'll be perfectly happy. Many others undoubtedly too. 
Till now I didn't hear you complain about the absence of index, so...

Michael.