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

["(see below)" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>]

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?

-- 
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk