Xojo arrays are easily used as stacks and queues. There is already a pop method which removes the last item and returns it.
Would it make sense/be useful to have push, enqueue, and dequeue methods? This would make it more obvious to a reader of the code what the intent was.
Push and enqueue do the same as addRow.
dequeue would remove the zero item and return it.
I don’t like the redundancy of push and enqueue, but I do agree that a first-in-first-out function (as opposed to the last-in-first-out nature of Pop) would be welcome.
But I’d call it PopTop. 
Cute.
I don’t have a problem with the redundancy. I think having the added terms would make code more readable, which I believe is somewhat important.
The counterpoint is, it clutters the language.
That said, if Xojo decided to do that, I’d have no problem with it, but I can’t think of another place where they’ve done that.
< cough >Generics < /cough >
something like
var intQueue as Queue<integer>
var stringQueue as Queue<string>
var intStack as Stack<integer>
var stringStack as Stack<string>
which is basically what you’re trying to fake by jamming all this into a single notion of “array” which isnt a data type in and of itself
Kem’s right in that they’ve never done this before (make an “alias” of a keyword). However, there are a number of places where this might be useful especially for beginners. For example, “addressof.” I believe this is the only place where Xojo talks about addresses. It might be easier for a novice to see “dothis:” or “using:”.
And, why have a special pop keyword and not push?
Then just add the methods yourself in a global module using the Extends keyword. This lets you add your own methods with whatever logic / naming you want – even if all the method does is an addRow or pop or whatever.
If you use a generic name like “push” or whatever you have the potential for a naming conflict if Xojo ever introduces that same name in the future. Some people like to add a prefix or suffix to help minimize name collisions.
Douglas,
I thought of that, but arrays can hold anything. I’m not sure (never tried) to do an Extends where it would work with anything. I wouldn’t want to create methods for all sorts of datatypes.
-Bob
You would need to create a separate extends for each data type.