🚀 go-pugleaf

Eugene Radchenko (eugene@qsar.chem.msu.su) wrote:
>   type tpair = object
>          m,n: integer;
>          end;
>   var  pairs : array[1..10] of tpair;
> then you can write, for instance:
>   for i = 1 to 10 do
>     with pairs[i] do
>       m = n;
> instead of
>   for i = 1 to 10
>     pairs[i].m = pairs[i].n;
> I think the first version is clearer and probably more easily optimizable
> than the second.

Would make 0 difference to optimisers, I suspect. The first may look
shorter to you but it's still doing what the second one says. A compiler
would be able to recognise this in both cases.

With is purely a piece of syntactical sugar (with some ugly type problems
described elsewhere in this thread). It provides a way of making your life
easier (or different). Not the compiler.

-- 
[==================================================================]
[ Kevin Lentin                   |___/~\__/~\___/~~~~\__/~\__/~\_| ]
[ kevinl@cs.monash.edu.au        |___/~\/~\_____/~\______/~\/~\__| ]
[ Macintrash: 'Just say NO!'     |___/~\__/~\___/~~~~\____/~~\___| ]
[==================================================================]

[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]