<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta name=Titel content=""><meta name=Stichwörter content=""><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Apple Color Emoji";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.E-Mail-Formatvorlage17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.msoIns
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-style-name:"";
text-decoration:underline;
color:teal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 2.0cm 70.85pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body bgcolor=white lang=DE link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Personally I’m indifferent. I can live with the current status quo for<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>arrays (where assignments of different ARRAY types are only allowed in<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>the case of open arrays). But I would also accept a relaxation of the<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>type equivalence rule in that case (knowing how easy it is to implement).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Personally, I’m not indifferent </span><span lang=EN-US style='font-family:"Apple Color Emoji";mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>☺</span><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>I know that it can be done, but the question is WHY. Only because something can be done is a poor reason to do it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>If you put a := b in your code, you do that as you know or assume a certain relationship between those two variables (they e.g. represent instances of the same or comparable thing). If this hold true, I don’t understand why you have to write two totally independent type declarations that (by accident) match structurally.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>br<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Jörg<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>