Re: Records that could be arrays

[Justin Gombos <rpbkbq.xax.gld@uluv.kbq>]

On 2006-02-23, Jean-Pierre Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr> wrote:
>
> I beg to disagree here. Arrays are for *iterative* structures, if
> you don't have a for loop over an array, it should be a record.

In most cases you don't know at the time you code the type whether
you'll use a loop; and records offer no advantages either way.  While
limitations can be quite useful when they apply to visibility or
access, I see no advantage to limiting the expressive power that
arrays have.

> The fact that all components are of the same type may be an accident
> that changes during program evolution.

Good point.

-- 
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.