Re: Records that could be arrays

[Stephen Leake <stephe_on_the_web@toadmail.com>]

Jean-Pierre Rosen <rosen@adalog.fr> writes:

> Justin Gombos a �crit :
>> I have set a rule for myself: Composite types composed solely of one
>> type of element should be declared as arrays rather than records.
>> I've never seen this rule in a coding standard.  The idea is that you
>> can be more expressive with an array.  Example- there are more options
>> when it comes to an arrays role in control structures.  Plus the
>> "others =>" notation is available.  Thoughts?
>>
> 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.

This is a good point. However, in my experience, I often end up using
a for loop in ancilliary places, even if there is no for loop in the
main use of the type.

For example, Text_IO Put, Get, and AUnit checks, are more easily done
with for loops.

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

Yes.

-- 
-- Stephe