Re: unconstrainded array question

[dewarr@my-dejanews.com]

In article <36033452.12702502@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>,
  tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran) wrote:
> Since you gave no definition for whatever Object might be, it's a
> little hard to tell what "This.xyz" might possibly be.  If xyz is an
> array, then it clearly must have bounds and it's range is defined.  If
> xyz is a type, and one with indefinite bounds, then obviously you
> can't use those undefined bounds as if they had values.


Just to be a bit clearer on my response. I actually see how
Tom got confused, because the original question is indeed
itself a bit confused. But the point is that in the reference

This.xyz

we know that This is an object, so hence This.xyz is (if
legal at all) also an object, it is not possible that xyz is
a type in the example we are given (that's why Tom's response
is confusing).

Now it is true that the original example is confusing. It
is of course incomplete, and it can indeed be completed in
a correct manner, so it is not clearly wrong. However, the
best guess is that the person who posted the question is
indeed very confused (you can guess this from (a) the other
questions that the same person has asked, and (b) the odd
multiple use of the identifier xyz!)

It always amazes me how people write rather random stuff
instead of taking the effort to learn the syntax of the
language they want to write in precisely. It's like a
mathematician rummaging around trying to prove things
without first familiarizing themseles with the axioms
(and saying: well I looked at a couple of other proofs
in this area, and I have a reasonable feel for what the
axioms are likely to be :-)

>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum