Optional declaration of types for Variables in Structures

[nco2k]

hi fred,

if you dont declare a type for procedures or variables, the default type will be used, which is a good thing. so why not for variables in structures too??

Code: Select all

Structure Struct
  Variable; will use the default type, if not declared otherwise. no need to write .l anymore
EndStructure
Debug SizeOf(Struct\Variable)

so everything without a type, will be declared with the default type automatically.

c ya,
nco2k

[Josh]

Nearly 10 years later

Is there any reason, that types in structures don't use the standardtype if not specified?

[netmaestro]

So three years from now the team goes with a different default type and suddenly thousands of structures are wrong.
Also, such a thing would be very unusual on the general coding scene and unique to PureBasic - standard approaches should be adhered to where possible.
You would effectively remove the self-documenting nature of structures, leaving newer PB coders wondering just what the hell is the size of this damn thing anyway.

If you're sharp you'll have picked up on the fact that I don't think this is a good idea.

[nco2k]

@netmaestro
>> So three years from now the team goes with a different default type and suddenly thousands of structures are wrong.
why? Structure\Var would be the same as Structure\Var.i. one day, when we have 128bit cpus in mainstream computers, it will simply use the default data type from that architecture, so how would that break anything?

>> Also, such a thing would be very unusual on the general coding scene and unique to PureBasic - standard approaches should be adhered to where possible.
there are a lot of things that are very unusual and unique to purebasic though.

>> You would effectively remove the self-documenting nature of structures, leaving newer PB coders wondering just what the hell is the size of this damn thing anyway.
the same goes for non-structured variables, where .i is optional and somehow the world didnt end so far.

it would be like With/EndWith. some people like it, some people dont. you can use it, but you dont have to. i dont see any drawback in this request, other than "i dont like it" and thats fine. thats why it would be optional.

c ya,
nco2k

[netmaestro]

@nco2k: Good points all. Shows there's certainly room for discussion.