Flexible Arrays in Records

[RedRogueXIII]

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?

[Cervantes]

Yeah, I think the only way to do it is to use objects.

[Clayton]

does anyone know why Holtsoft didnt want Turing to have flexy arrays in records? i mean come on...

[Cervantes]

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.

[Clayton]

well i cant see how flexy arrays in records could be much more difficult that a regular flexy array...

[Cervantes]

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

[Clayton]

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