Computer Science Canada

Flexible Arrays in Records
Author:  RedRogueXIII [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Flexible Arrays in Records
Is there any way around Turing's disabilty of not being able to declare flexible arrays as a part of a record other than
a) Declaring a flexible array outside the record
b) Creating a very large static array inside in the record

Just wondering, or would I have to learn classes and objects to use flexible arrays but still keep things organized?
Author:  Cervantes [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:21 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, I think the only way to do it is to use objects.
Author:  Clayton [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 4:35 pm ]
Post subject: 
does anyone know why Holtsoft didnt want Turing to have flexy arrays in records? i mean come on...
Author:  Cervantes [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 5:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think it's less a matter of "want" and more a matter of difficulty of implementing it.

But that might just be a lot of bogus. I'm not actually sure how flexible arrays are stored in memory.
Author:  Clayton [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
well i cant see how flexy arrays in records could be much more difficult that a regular flexy array...
Author:  Cervantes [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Consider other things we can't do. We can't make a multi-dimensional flexible array (that works well).

This style of declaring a 2D array produces a syntax error:
code:

var a : flexible array 1 .. 5 of flexible array 1 .. 3 of int


This is essentially the same as:
code:

var a : flexible array 1 .. 5 of
    record
        b : flexible array 1 .. 3 of int
    end record
Author:  Clayton [ Fri Aug 11, 2006 7:04 pm ]
Post subject: 
well i dont see how you would declare a new upper bounds for the first example there, but for the second one i can see how it works easily:

code:

var myArray: flexible array 1..0 of
    record
        another_array: flexible array 1..0 of int
    end record

new myArray, upper(myArray)+1 %new upper bounds for the entire thing
new myArray(1).another_array,upper(myArray(1).another_array)+1
%upperbounds for another_array is one now


that just looks a lot better and makes sense to me, so i dont see what the big problem would have been Confused

:


You can syndicate this boards posts using the file backend.php or view the topic map using sitemap.php.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy