|
I remember that, now. I don't think I voted for it because I didn't see it as being as useful as some of the other options, though I don't remember what the other options were. My initial thought was just to allow a qualified data structure to be defined as a constant. The ability to have constants as subfields of variable data structures is also interesting, but I think I would prefer to have constant data structures in the next RPG enhancement, rather than have to wait until the one after that to get constant subfields, of course if we can have both in the next update I wouldn't complain. Joe Lee >>> bmorris@xxxxxxxxxx 12/30/2004 13:11:28 >>> Joe Lee wrote: > > An interesting idea occurred to me while reading this. Would it be > possible to add constant qualified data structures? These constants > would be used and defined just like a variable qualified data structure. > So you would have something like the following. > My memory has already gone on New Year's vacation ... Const for variables was on our last enhancement survey (2002). It got about 6% of the votes. Maybe with an example like yours it would have scored higher ... #38 $15 Allow keyword CONST for variables. CONST variables can be initialized, but not modified. On procedure calls, they can be passed only as CONST or VALUE parameters.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact copyright@midrange.com.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.