Re: Oberon and Wirthian languages

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Niklas Holsti" <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> wrote in message 
news:brt9ftFrnkaU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 14-04-24 21:51 , Simon Clubley wrote:
...
>> It will be interesting to see if Randy and company have any comments on
>> this syntax.

Not really, other than that someone needs to come up with syntax that has 
the right "feeling". None of the proposals I've seen have that yet, but keep 
trying.

> Overload resolution may be an issue. I think it could be based purely on
> the "initial values" part ("A" in the examples above) and could ignore
> the named component associations.

I don't think so. An aggregate has to resolve without context, so the type 
of the aggregate has to be unique or its already illegal (ignoring the 
contents). Once you have that, resolving the contents is straighforward (it 
would be a lot easier than an extension aggregate as the type of the object 
would have the be the same as the aggregate as a whole, not something in a 
class - unless of course one also added a form of extension here as an 
option [I see no need.]).

                           Randy.