Re: What do you think about this?

[Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org>]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> wrote in message 
> news:mmhd5h$qef$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 06/25/2015 06:16 AM, Stephen Leake wrote:
>>> "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> This is a terrible idea. As compiler writer, ARG member, and ARM editor 
>>>> Brukardt
>>>> said recently in another thread, anonymous access types are evil.
>>>
>>> This is one place they are very useful.
>>
>> Still evil and to be avoided, even here.
>>
>>>> I would even
>>>> argue against a named access type for this, since unbounded strings are
>>>> available. In this case, the OP has an instance of bounded strings 
>>>> available and
>>>> would probably want to use that.
>>>
>>> That makes them non-constant, which is certainly _not_ the intent!
>>
>> Declaring the array constant deals with that.
>
> Exactly. Why make things more complex than necessary? There's a place for 
> the access-to-constant solution (although I'd use a named type), but it 
> isn't here since the OP is using an bounded string type for all of his 
> strings.

He should not be using a bounded string type; that's the point.

Using a bounded string always involves a hidden length limit; if it's
too small, you'll hit it sometime, if it's too big, you're wasting storage.

-- 
-- Stephe