"Gennaro Prota" <gennaro_prota@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:umnl1055i9m8bq3gft7um0ercu1179nl22@4ax.com...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:44:42 -0700, "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> wrote:
The current array sizing facility is not standard-conforming. I assume Thorsten is going to fix it, but it doesn't look like he has yet.
A conforming implementation is really two lines of code. It's fun to write, but admittedly of limited usefulness, in that I would think in properly designed code the needed number of elements would be already exposed through a named constant. So, the only cases where I can imagine this to be useful is either when you need the count of the array to play some unorthodox trick, or when you have third-party code that "forgot" to expose the right constant.
Well, I can't really argue with that. But it seemes that a conforming implementation would be better than a non-conforming one. Jonathan