Syntax changes suggestions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
113 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Jim Lee


On 07/17/18 13:28, Ryan Joseph wrote:
>
>> On Jul 17, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Jim Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> And that's why I hesitate whenever someone comes along and says we should add <feature of the day> to Pascal
> I just want my life to be easier and to enjoy programming in Pascal as much as possible. If I’m doing work I don’t have to, merely knowing that Pascal has remained pure to the original specification is not very much comfort to me.
>

That's why we have more than one language to create programs with. It's
not possible to use one language in all domains with an equal amount of
ease in each domain.

Think of human languages.  You cannot describe the operation of an
internal combustion engine and the operation of performing an
appendectomy with the same, plain English vocabulary.  Each requires the
use of jargon specific to the domain.   So it is with programming
languages - if we added the "jargon" necessary to cover every domain in
a single language, that language would be unintelligible.

-Jim


_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Jim Lee
In reply to this post by Ryan Joseph


On 07/17/18 13:28, Ryan Joseph wrote:
> If I’m doing work I don’t have to, merely knowing that Pascal has
> remained pure to the original specification is not very much comfort
> to me.

I'm not advocating for purity.  I'm advocating for diversity.  I don't
want to see Pascal become MumbleScript, or whatever the hot language of
the week happens to be.

-Jim

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Dekks Herton
In reply to this post by Ryan Joseph
Ryan Joseph <[hidden email]> writes:

>> On Jul 17, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Jim Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> And that's why I hesitate whenever someone comes along and says we should add <feature of the day> to Pascal
>
> I just want my life to be easier and to enjoy programming in Pascal as
> much as possible. If I’m doing work I don’t have to, merely knowing
> that Pascal has remained pure to the original specification is not
> very much comfort to me.

Thereby rests one of the problems of modern programming, choose the best
tool at hand for the project at hand. Trouble is so many only know 1 or
2 languages [looking at you java + python] people try to make them do
everything thus leading to half assed features + bloat.  

--
Regards.........
 
PGP Fingerprint: 3DF8 311C 4740 B5BC 3867  72DF 1050 452F 9BCE BA00
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Ben Grasset
In reply to this post by Free Pascal - General mailing list
They observably are good though, now that they've been implemented, especially in combination with management operators. These are features that objectively make FPC better. I'm unsure what the original concern could have even possibly been, other than some vague notion of "well, records didn't have methods before, so they shouldn't now!".

Classes are unsuitable performance-wise for many use cases, and TP objects lack important features such as variant parts. Advanced records are a great lightweight in-between point.

On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal <[hidden email]> wrote:
Am 17.07.2018 um 20:00 schrieb Ryan Joseph:

On Jul 17, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Jim Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:

Likewise, "modern" programming languages are all converging on a common feature set, like cultural cross-pollination.
if that’s our mindset then how do we account for times when we’ve actually identified a common pattern that a language feature could address? I’m thinking of things like methods in records, for..in loops etc… that made it into the language and are widely adopted and enjoyed.
Those specific features you mention were added because of Delphi compatibility not because someone thought they are good. Florian even likened records with methods to a can of worms before they were implemented.

Regards,
Sven

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal


_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Ryan Joseph


> On Jul 18, 2018, at 7:14 AM, Ben Grasset <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Classes are unsuitable performance-wise for many use cases, and TP objects lack important features such as variant parts. Advanced records are a great lightweight in-between point.

Yes indeed. Not being able to allocate classes on the stack is a scandal for Pascal. I don’t know why the devs decided classes must be on the heap and anything other than that would violate some supposed design principle (Delphi??).


Regards,
        Ryan Joseph

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Ryan Joseph
In reply to this post by Free Pascal - General mailing list


> On Jul 17, 2018, at 2:41 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> There is a more important difference: the developers and the users. Only because the latters think an idea is good or probable the former do not necessarily need to agree. And don't forget that we, the developers work on this in our free time and thus don't have any interest on spending time on features that we don't believe in.

that’s fair of course but what should be we do if we want to contribute? Remember I basically finished macros with parameters but what should I do now? The devs seemed to all really despise the idea but is there a formal channel I should use to  petition for the idea or something? I heard from maybe5 people that said it was a stupid idea (fair enough) but what do the rest of the FPC users say?

Regards,
        Ryan Joseph

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Free Pascal - General mailing list
Ryan Joseph <[hidden email]> schrieb am Mi., 18. Juli 2018, 19:15:


> On Jul 17, 2018, at 2:41 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> There is a more important difference: the developers and the users. Only because the latters think an idea is good or probable the former do not necessarily need to agree. And don't forget that we, the developers work on this in our free time and thus don't have any interest on spending time on features that we don't believe in.

that’s fair of course but what should be we do if we want to contribute? Remember I basically finished macros with parameters but what should I do now? The devs seemed to all really despise the idea but is there a formal channel I should use to  petition for the idea or something? I heard from maybe5 people that said it was a stupid idea (fair enough) but what do the rest of the FPC users say?

The devs have brought up reasons against the feature and you not accepting or reasons against it is not a reason for us to accept your reasons for the feature. And even if the majority of the users would be for the feature it will always take someone to commit it and if none of the devs want your feature than it won't be integrated. This is not a democracy. 

And to give you a slightly different example: around a year ago or so I implemented a IfThen() intrinsic that works like the if-statement, but as an expression (like C's trinary ?: operator including not evaluating the branch not taken). The majority of the users seemed to like it, but reasons against it surfaced and so I reverted it again.

Regards, 
Sven 

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Free Pascal - General mailing list
In reply to this post by Ryan Joseph
Ryan Joseph <[hidden email]> schrieb am Mi., 18. Juli 2018, 19:00:


> On Jul 18, 2018, at 7:14 AM, Ben Grasset <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Classes are unsuitable performance-wise for many use cases, and TP objects lack important features such as variant parts. Advanced records are a great lightweight in-between point.

Yes indeed. Not being able to allocate classes on the stack is a scandal for Pascal. I don’t know why the devs decided classes must be on the heap and anything other than that would violate some supposed design principle (Delphi??).

A point against stack based classes is that Object Pascal's object model is highly geared towards polymorphism (with things like virtual class methods and constructors that C++ does not support). You can't make use of this however if the class is instantiated on the stack. 

Regards, 
Sven 

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Ryan Joseph
In reply to this post by Free Pascal - General mailing list


> On Jul 18, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> And to give you a slightly different example: around a year ago or so I implemented a IfThen() intrinsic that works like the if-statement, but as an expression (like C's trinary ?: operator including not evaluating the branch not taken). The majority of the users seemed to like it, but reasons against it surfaced and so I reverted it again.
>

That’s pretty disheartening honestly. So there was a useful feature users could be leveraging but it was turned down because it didn’t fit into some paradigm or something like that. Sorry to hear that.

Since I’ve been using FPC in 2003-2004 the language has never forced any of its new features on me and I can still program Pascal like I did when I started in the 90’s. Forcing me to use features is where my line is crossed but I struggle to understand why we’re withholding good ideas from users to this extent.

Regards,
        Ryan Joseph

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Ryan Joseph
In reply to this post by Free Pascal - General mailing list


> On Jul 18, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> A point against stack based classes is that Object Pascal's object model is highly geared towards polymorphism (with things like virtual class methods and constructors that C++ does not support). You can't make use of this however if the class is instantiated on the stack.

Isn't that what Object does though? Something strange happened when FPC implemented classes because they didn’t unify the model between stack and heap. That was the obvious thing to do in my mind.

I remember back when I was using Objects and doing like C++ where I used new to allocate on the heap then dereference using ^. to access members. When classes came around I thought, this is nice, no more new and ^. everywhere and easier to use. Fast forward to today and I want the option to go stack based back but the models have diverged so much it’s not possible anymore.

Just now I wanted to use TFPGList and I wanted it on the stack because I didn’t want it to survive outside the function I was in. What do I do now?

Regards,
        Ryan Joseph

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Florian Klämpfl
In reply to this post by Michael Van Canneyt
Am 17.07.2018 um 12:07 schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
> If of course you write routines of several hundreds of lines (or
> thousands),
> then you probably would need to have such a feature.
>
> But I would fire any programmer that writes such code anyway, since it
> indicates he cannot think structured.
>

You should fire the whole compiler development team then ;)

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

R0b0t1
In reply to this post by Ryan Joseph
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ryan Joseph <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>> On Jul 18, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> And to give you a slightly different example: around a year ago or so I implemented a IfThen() intrinsic that works like the if-statement, but as an expression (like C's trinary ?: operator including not evaluating the branch not taken). The majority of the users seemed to like it, but reasons against it surfaced and so I reverted it again.
>>
>
> That’s pretty disheartening honestly. So there was a useful feature users could be leveraging but it was turned down because it didn’t fit into some paradigm or something like that. Sorry to hear that.
>
> Since I’ve been using FPC in 2003-2004 the language has never forced any of its new features on me and I can still program Pascal like I did when I started in the 90’s. Forcing me to use features is where my line is crossed but I struggle to understand why we’re withholding good ideas from users to this extent.
>

You can make the function yourself. That you may have problems with
typing are indicative that the language could use a more expressive
type system, not that it was a good idea to create an intrinsic that
could (potentially) ignore types.

Cheers,
     R0b0t1
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Ryan Joseph


> On Jul 18, 2018, at 1:46 PM, R0b0t1 <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> You can make the function yourself. That you may have problems with
> typing are indicative that the language could use a more expressive
> type system, not that it was a good idea to create an intrinsic that
> could (potentially) ignore types.

I don’t remember what it did exactly. Like this maybe?

n = (x != 0) ? 10 : 20;

if x <> 0 then
  n := 10
else
  n := 20;

n := IfThen(x <> 0, 10, 20);

People are probably sick of doing that and wanted a more concise statement. I’ve even seen people do stuff like this because they’re fighting the language.

if x <> 0 then n := 10 else n := 20;

They probably wanted something like this:

n := if x <> 0 then 10 else 20;

Not too crazy in my opinion.

Regards,
        Ryan Joseph

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Free Pascal - General mailing list
In reply to this post by Ryan Joseph
Ryan Joseph <[hidden email]> schrieb am Mi., 18. Juli 2018, 21:37:


> On Jul 18, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> And to give you a slightly different example: around a year ago or so I implemented a IfThen() intrinsic that works like the if-statement, but as an expression (like C's trinary ?: operator including not evaluating the branch not taken). The majority of the users seemed to like it, but reasons against it surfaced and so I reverted it again.
>

That’s pretty disheartening honestly. So there was a useful feature users could be leveraging but it was turned down because it didn’t fit into some paradigm or something like that. Sorry to hear that.

Due to it essentially being an overload of IfThen in the Math unit there was the possibility of confusion not to mention that it would be the only function like construct that would not evaluate all parameters. When I'm going to add it again I'm probably going the Oxygen route and use an if-expression enabled with a modeswitch 🤷‍♀️


Since I’ve been using FPC in 2003-2004 the language has never forced any of its new features on me and I can still program Pascal like I did when I started in the 90’s. Forcing me to use features is where my line is crossed but I struggle to understand why we’re withholding good ideas from users to this extent.

The problem with any language feature is this: even if I don't use it someone else will and I'll sooner or later have to read such code. So in that sense any language feature is forced upon everyone. 

Regards, 
Sven 

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Free Pascal - General mailing list
In reply to this post by Ryan Joseph
Ryan Joseph <[hidden email]> schrieb am Mi., 18. Juli 2018, 21:41:


> On Jul 18, 2018, at 12:47 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> A point against stack based classes is that Object Pascal's object model is highly geared towards polymorphism (with things like virtual class methods and constructors that C++ does not support). You can't make use of this however if the class is instantiated on the stack.

Isn't that what Object does though? Something strange happened when FPC implemented classes because they didn’t unify the model between stack and heap. That was the obvious thing to do in my mind.

You have to keep in mind the history here. The "object" type is from Turbo Pascal times and back then it already showed its weaknesses. Then along came Delphi and Borland decided to introduce a brand new object model based on the "class" type which tackled the weak points of the "object" type and introduced some more polymorphism for the type. 
You can't utilize polymorphism with "object" instances in the stack either. 


I remember back when I was using Objects and doing like C++ where I used new to allocate on the heap then dereference using ^. to access members. When classes came around I thought, this is nice, no more new and ^. everywhere and easier to use. Fast forward to today and I want the option to go stack based back but the models have diverged so much it’s not possible anymore.

Just now I wanted to use TFPGList and I wanted it on the stack because I didn’t want it to survive outside the function I was in. What do I do now?

I really wonder why you keep thinking that you need them on the stack. I'm developing in Object Pascal (and this the "class" based model) for around 16 years or so and I never felt the need to put a class on the stack. I'm saying that while I also work with C++ at work for nearly 5 years and *do* use stack based structs and classes there. 

Regards, 
Sven 

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Free Pascal - General mailing list
In reply to this post by R0b0t1
R0b0t1 <[hidden email]> schrieb am Mi., 18. Juli 2018, 21:46:
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ryan Joseph <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 18, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> And to give you a slightly different example: around a year ago or so I implemented a IfThen() intrinsic that works like the if-statement, but as an expression (like C's trinary ?: operator including not evaluating the branch not taken). The majority of the users seemed to like it, but reasons against it surfaced and so I reverted it again.
>>
>
> That’s pretty disheartening honestly. So there was a useful feature users could be leveraging but it was turned down because it didn’t fit into some paradigm or something like that. Sorry to hear that.
>
> Since I’ve been using FPC in 2003-2004 the language has never forced any of its new features on me and I can still program Pascal like I did when I started in the 90’s. Forcing me to use features is where my line is crossed but I struggle to understand why we’re withholding good ideas from users to this extent.
>

You can make the function yourself. 

You can't, because the main point of the intrinsic was that the parameter that was in the branch not taken was not evaluated at all just like with the if-statement. Normal function calls will always evaluate the parameters. 

Regards, 
Sven 

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

R0b0t1
In reply to this post by Free Pascal - General mailing list
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 3:57 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Ryan Joseph <[hidden email]> schrieb am Mi., 18. Juli 2018,
> 21:37:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 18, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
>> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >
>> > And to give you a slightly different example: around a year ago or so I
>> > implemented a IfThen() intrinsic that works like the if-statement, but as an
>> > expression (like C's trinary ?: operator including not evaluating the branch
>> > not taken). The majority of the users seemed to like it, but reasons against
>> > it surfaced and so I reverted it again.
>> >
>>
>> That’s pretty disheartening honestly. So there was a useful feature users
>> could be leveraging but it was turned down because it didn’t fit into some
>> paradigm or something like that. Sorry to hear that.
>
>
> Due to it essentially being an overload of IfThen in the Math unit there was
> the possibility of confusion not to mention that it would be the only
> function like construct that would not evaluate all parameters. When I'm
> going to add it again I'm probably going the Oxygen route and use an
> if-expression enabled with a modeswitch 🤷‍♀️
>
>
>> Since I’ve been using FPC in 2003-2004 the language has never forced any
>> of its new features on me and I can still program Pascal like I did when I
>> started in the 90’s. Forcing me to use features is where my line is crossed
>> but I struggle to understand why we’re withholding good ideas from users to
>> this extent.
>
>
> The problem with any language feature is this: even if I don't use it
> someone else will and I'll sooner or later have to read such code. So in
> that sense any language feature is forced upon everyone.
>

To go along with this, as it is all of the dialects of Pascal
supported by FPC make for a difficult to understand language
interface. Some of the "open" "standards" supported have very warty
featuresets already.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

R0b0t1
In reply to this post by Free Pascal - General mailing list
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> R0b0t1 <[hidden email]> schrieb am Mi., 18. Juli 2018, 21:46:
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ryan Joseph <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Jul 18, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
>> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> And to give you a slightly different example: around a year ago or so I
>> >> implemented a IfThen() intrinsic that works like the if-statement, but as an
>> >> expression (like C's trinary ?: operator including not evaluating the branch
>> >> not taken). The majority of the users seemed to like it, but reasons against
>> >> it surfaced and so I reverted it again.
>> >>
>> >
>> > That’s pretty disheartening honestly. So there was a useful feature
>> > users could be leveraging but it was turned down because it didn’t fit into
>> > some paradigm or something like that. Sorry to hear that.
>> >
>> > Since I’ve been using FPC in 2003-2004 the language has never forced any
>> > of its new features on me and I can still program Pascal like I did when I
>> > started in the 90’s. Forcing me to use features is where my line is crossed
>> > but I struggle to understand why we’re withholding good ideas from users to
>> > this extent.
>> >
>>
>> You can make the function yourself.
>
>
> You can't, because the main point of the intrinsic was that the parameter
> that was in the branch not taken was not evaluated at all just like with the
> if-statement. Normal function calls will always evaluate the parameters.
>

I understand, but you can get close. That is why I mentioned type
safety. Ignoring those things seems kind of anti-Pascal way.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Ben Grasset
In reply to this post by Free Pascal - General mailing list
The "I might have to read code I don't like" argument people seem to keep resorting to comes off as rather childish, frankly. It's entirely subjective and specific to each person. 

For example, does anyone actually think the strange "lowercase everything" capitalization style the compiler uses is "readable" nowadays? It seems rather unlikely that's what would have ended up being used if FPC was started today.

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ryan Joseph <[hidden email]> schrieb am Mi., 18. Juli 2018, 21:37:


> On Jul 18, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> And to give you a slightly different example: around a year ago or so I implemented a IfThen() intrinsic that works like the if-statement, but as an expression (like C's trinary ?: operator including not evaluating the branch not taken). The majority of the users seemed to like it, but reasons against it surfaced and so I reverted it again.
>

That’s pretty disheartening honestly. So there was a useful feature users could be leveraging but it was turned down because it didn’t fit into some paradigm or something like that. Sorry to hear that.

Due to it essentially being an overload of IfThen in the Math unit there was the possibility of confusion not to mention that it would be the only function like construct that would not evaluate all parameters. When I'm going to add it again I'm probably going the Oxygen route and use an if-expression enabled with a modeswitch 🤷‍♀️


Since I’ve been using FPC in 2003-2004 the language has never forced any of its new features on me and I can still program Pascal like I did when I started in the 90’s. Forcing me to use features is where my line is crossed but I struggle to understand why we’re withholding good ideas from users to this extent.

The problem with any language feature is this: even if I don't use it someone else will and I'll sooner or later have to read such code. So in that sense any language feature is forced upon everyone. 

Regards, 
Sven 

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal


_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Syntax changes suggestions

Ben Grasset
In reply to this post by R0b0t1
Ironically, type safety is a good argument for the further development of various generics related things. Yet unfortunately I don't think anyone is going to stop using the Contnrs unit in new code anytime soon...

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
123456