Alternate declaration syntax

[Hans W. Uhlig]

Yigal Chripun wrote:
> Koroskin Denis wrote:
>> Talking about multiple return values, I'd like to see the following
>> syntax:
>>
>> // both types are 'int's (just for simplicity)
>> [int, int] someFunction()
>> {
>>     return [1, 2];
>> }
>>
>> instead of, for example,
>>
>> Tuple!(int,int) somFunction()
>> {
>>     return Tuple!(int,int) {1, 2};
>> }
>>
>> In fact, Tuple!(int,int) isn't that different from int[2].
>> They share 'length' property, and I like result[0] more than result._0,
>> 'cause it's simpler, more intuitive and behaves just like built-in type:
>>
>> auto result = someFunction();
>>
>> auto len = result.length; // compile-time evalualable
>> auto r0 = result[0];      // types can be easily deduced
>> auto r1 = result[1];
>> auto r2 = result[2];      // fails to compile, out of bounds.
>>
>> Whaddya think? :)
> I like the basic idea, although I would prefer a different operator than [].
> basically, my only issue is that when i see res[i] I would assume that
> res is an array.
> 
> Tuples have much more in common with structs than with arrays, and as
> such, I would prefer:
> 
> {int, double} someFunction()
> {
>     return {1, 2.5};
> }
> 
> and:
> 
> auto result = someFunction();
> 
> auto len = result.length; // compile-time evalualable
> auto r0 = result{0};      // types can be easily deduced
> auto r1 = result{0,1};  // define a new tuple with a subset of result's
> values
> 
> or:
> 
> result.at(0);
> 
> or even something similar to ML's:
> r1 = $1(result) ; // second item in tuple
> 
> -- Yigal
> 
In this I must agree, using

	return {1,"string",objectref}; is far cleaner then eigther prior 
reference.