Neil Korpusik wrote: > Jonathan Bromley wrote On 10/23/07 01:45 AM,: >> (7) In a modification of suggestion (2): instead of putting >> a list of names in the parens, provide just one identifier, >> freely chosen by the programmer, which is to be treated as >> an alias for the object being randomized: >> obj.randomize() with (thing) {thing.x < thing.y + x;}; >> > > Perhaps I am missing something here. > > Why can't we just use the following? Since obj is the thing > being randomized, why can't we just use 'obj.' when we need to > specify that the variables used in the with clause are within obj? > > obj.randomize() with {obj.x < obj.y + x;}; Neil, I think that this would effectively remove the current special rules. In addition, this is painful if "obj" is a general select prefix -- users would want/need to create a temporary handle of the appropriate type to have manageable constraints. Gord. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue Oct 23 14:14:17 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 23 2007 - 14:14:30 PDT