Re: Proposal: Auto-allocation of Indefinite Objects

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 20/08/2020 02:10, Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
> news:rgr267$1o1n$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>> No, from the abstraction point of view they do not. They indeed abstract
>> the memory allocation aspect, but they do that at the cost of *everything*
>> else. Unbounded_String is no string anymore. Container is neither array
>> nor record type. Unbounded_String must be converted forth and back. For
>> containers I must use ugly hacks like iterators to make them resemble
>> arrays and records introducing whole levels of complexity to fight through
>> every time the compiler or I miss something.
>>
>> In most cases I prefer to keep a clear array or record interface at the
>> expense of manual memory management.
>>
>>> There's no free lunch.
>>
>> I think with a better type system there could be a whole banquet. (:-))
> 
> Maybe. but IMHO a better type system would get rid of arrays and strings
> altogether and only have containers/records of various sorts. The complexity
> of having both solving the same problems (not very well in the case of
> arrays/strings) doesn't buy much. I suspect that a user-defined "." as
> you've proposed elsewhere would eliminate most of the rest of the problems
> (and unify everything even further).

But records and arrays are needed as building blocks of containers. How 
would you get rid of them?

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de