Can you add some syntactic sugar?

[nvasil]

One of the things that I find annoying at ECL is when I need to use a DATASET of primitives, such as

DATASET(STRING)

It seems to me that it should be easy to make the compiler accept that and easily generate the right code underneath:

like
STRINC_REC = {
STRING _s;
};

and automatically convert DATASET(STRING) to DATASET(STRING_REC)

[rtaylor]

One of the things that I find annoying at ECL is when I need to use a DATASET of primitives, such as

Can you post a larger piece of example code so we can see exactly what you're doing within its context?

Thanks,

Richard

[nvasil]

Nothing special.Quite often you just need an array of strings or integers and you always have to wrap them in DATASETS
I would have liked to have DATASET(STRING) or DATASET(INTEGER)

[rtaylor]

Nothing special.

If it were common practice, then I would probably have the same complaint, but I don't, so...

Quite often you just need an array of strings or integers and you always have to wrap them in DATASETS

I have not found this to be the case. When I need an array (a set, in ECL terms) I simply define a set of strings or integers or whatever.

I would have liked to have DATASET(STRING) or DATASET(INTEGER)

I have no idea what it is you're trying to accomplish, which is precisely why I asked for a code example showing exactly what you are doing.

IOW, right now I have no idea what syntax requirements you are complaining about. If you will please expand on your issue and show me what you are referring to, then communication will have been achieved.

Please show me the kind of code you are writing, then perhaps I can show you an alternative.

Richard