Re: Initialization and Finalization of limited object "returned" by a function

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:52:06 +0000, (see below) wrote:

> On 13/02/2010 09:54, in article jk97b2c81itt$.1h9s6uejsnxcu.dlg@40tude.net,
> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:15:17 -0500, Robert A Duff wrote:
>> 
>>> "Hibou57 (Yannick Duch�ne)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On 12 f�v, 00:24, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
>>>>> Well, I don't find it "graceful" that single-element positional
>>>>> aggregates are not allowed. �And zero-element ones. �I think
>>>>> it's just bad language design.
>>>> It seems you are suggesting the ambiguity should be resolved
>>>> semantically. Why not :)
>>> 
>>> No, it should be syntactic.  And it should be more obvious
>>> than counting the number of expressions between "(" and ")".
>>> 
>>> Aggregates should use "[" and "]", so there's no confusion.
>> 
>> Nope, the mathematical notation for a tuple is as in Ada (a,b,c,...), so
>> should it be. I see no problem in having it ambiguous (overloaded).
> 
> <a,b,c, ...>, surely?

Hmm, I am not sure if I ever saw that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuple

BTW, if it were my choice, I would allow user-defined aggregates to take
any paired brackets (), [], {} and, maybe <>.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de