Re: 'Image for composite types

[Martin <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com>]

On May 28, 5:25 pm, "Jeffrey R. Carter"
<spam.jrcarter....@nospam.acm.org> wrote:
> Martin wrote:
>
> > I'm greedy...I want to override any stupid implementation defined
> > subprogram with my fancy one! (perhaps one for XML output, another for
> > csv, etc depending on the what I need the output for).
>
> Let's see ... 1st, Martin asks for 'Image for composite types. 'Image is a
> "stupid" attribute function for numeric and enumeration types. Then, when
> someone provides a mechanism by which he could obtain such a thing, he says he
> doesn't want 'Image for composite types unless he can do things with it that he
> can't do with the existing 'Image. Sounds a bit like the kind of thing Babbage
> complained about:
>
> "Propose to an Englishman any principle, or any instrument, however
> admirable, and you will observe that the whole effort of the English
> mind is directed to find a difficulty, a defect, or an impossibility
> in it. If you speak to him of a machine for peeling a potato, he will
> pronounce it impossible: if you peel a potato with it before his eyes,
> he will declare it useless, because it will not slice a pineapple."
> Charles Babbage

But I _am_ asking for something different to the existing 'Image - the
ability to override it with whatever I want 'Image to produce. For
some values a 16#...# might be more appropriate than the default
string.

There would seem to be little pointing add this for composite types
and not scalar ones too.

Cheers
-- Martin

p.s. you can call me anything your like...just please never, EVER
English! ;-)