• Pavel Minayev (4/4) Feb 04 2002 How about a syntax to define a function that takes an unlimited number
• Russ Lewis (8/12) Feb 04 2002 That would not be far from simply taking a dynamic array of those types....
• Pavel Minayev (7/9) Feb 04 2002 That

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> writes:

How about a syntax to define a function that takes an unlimited number
of arguments of _one_, strictly defined type? Something like this:

    void printfi(int count, int...);    // takes unlimited number of ints
    void printfs(int count, char[]...); // takes unlimited number of strings

Russ Lewis <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> writes:

That would not be far from simply taking a dynamic array of those types.  That
can already be done; question is, it it worth having the compiler do it for you?

Pavel Minayev wrote:

 How about a syntax to define a function that takes an unlimited number
 of arguments of _one_, strictly defined type? Something like this:

     void printfi(int count, int...);    // takes unlimited number of ints
     void printfs(int count, char[]...); // takes unlimited number of strings

--
The Villagers are Online! villagersonline.com

.[ (the fox.(quick,brown)) jumped.over(the dog.lazy) ]
.[ (a version.of(English).(precise.more)) is(possible) ]
?[ you want.to(help(develop(it))) ]

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> writes:

"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> wrote in message
news:3C5EFE95.E9A3B0DB deming-os.org...
 That would not be far from simply taking a dynamic array of those types.

That
 can already be done; question is, it it worth having the compiler do it

for you?

If we have array literals, no. It'd look like this, then:

    printfi([1, 2, 3]);

But we don't have them and we don't know if they'll be there or not.