[chuck-users] Problem with mixed float int lists

[Hans Aberg]

On 10 Dec 2009, at 00:18, Kassen wrote:

>> So isn't this what you want?
>
>
> Hmmm, this is a tricky case, I see what you mean now. You are  
> talking about callig overloaded functions using anonymous arrays, as  
> a example of determining the type of these arrays, right?

Yes, that is it how it appeared in my program. I post a note about it  
here soon.

> I see no real harm in your plan but mainly I think that this sounds  
> quite dangerous as a practice and should probably be considered bad- 
> ish form anyway. I don't have a strong opinion on this, right now.

Yes, one must think carefully as to not have bad rules - the risk is  
that some unexpected functions may be called.

> I thought you were talking about assigning a anonymous array to a  
> named one at instantiation, like this;
>
> [1, 1.1, 1.2] @=> float foo[]; //this won't fly
>
> That's one case where I think it's perfectly clear what is meant and  
> that the "1"(int) can safely be cast to float, as it can here;
>
> 1 => float bar; //this is fine

Yes, and that is the first rule I want for arguments as well.

> This may be as bit of a exception because here we can determine very  
> clearly what was meant, like we can when returning arrays from  
> functions, but those are also the cases where I get annoyed by my  
> own typos most. In the general case it does seem a bit odd indeed,  
> though at least the behaviour is consistent and predictable.
>
> As a side note; some time ago I complained about the lack of  
> anonymous arrays of length zero. Like this;
>
> [1,2] @=> int fine;
> [1] @=> int still_fine;
> [] @=> int fails;
>
> It turns out that we actually can. but need to do it like this;
>
> new int[0];
>
> This can be handy when returning from functions.

For consistency, [] should work as you suggest - that is how it is in  
Haskell, for example.

It would be the normal thing.

   Hans