Ah, yes, didn't notice that part. One cannot give the Aggregate aspect on an array type, directly or indirectly. That's because container aggregates are designed to work like array aggregates, and we didn't want visibility to determine the interpretation of an aggregate (especially where the same syntax could have a different meaning in different visibility).. Thus, there can be no point where a single type can have both array aggregates and container aggregates.
Note that record aggregates and container aggregates are always syntactally different, and thus it is OK to have both in a single location (that's one
of the reasons that we adopted square brackets for container aggregates). That seemed important as the majority of private types are completed by record types, and not allowing record types in this context would be difficult to work around.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,030 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 19:00:50 |
| Calls: | 13,345 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 186,574 |
| D/L today: |
1,444 files (362M bytes) |
| Messages: | 3,357,599 |