Anonymous structs

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-02-12 21:30, Era Scarecrow wrote:

>   Seems I did misread what you had, however having it creating dozens of
> misc/anonymous types doesn't seem like a wise idea. The entire block as
> it was defined is more like a scope/code block rather than a struct
> declaration; Then is it a delegate instead? (without return type or
> input type possibly)

I don't know what you're talking about. Where did "delegate" come from?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg