On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:29:51 +0100 Bram Kuijvenhoven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Micha Nelissen wrote: > > On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:45:19 +0100 > > Bram Kuijvenhoven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Does <> for generics fit into Pascal? Well, we use [] for array > >indexing, and () for parameter passing to procedures/functions/methods. > >So why not use <> for passing parameters to generic types? And, similar > >to the case of function calls and array indexing, these <> could follow > >the type identifier directly. > > > > You got a point here, but the "where T is Foo" stuff is crap then, don't > > you agree? > > > > TGType<T: TBaseType> = class(...) ... end; > > > > is better then, when compared to your parameter example. > > I indeed don't like the "where T is foo" of Chrome :) So you are totally > right, TGType<T : TBaseType> is a lot better and a lot more consistent > (with e.g. function parameter syntaxis). Let's sum up the different points for the syntax so far: - <> will probably be used by Delphi - <> bites the < operator - <> makes the parser more difficult and slow - <> makes pascal more ambigious - alternatives: modifiers or not yet used brackets like (! !) or (# #) It seems to me, it's a question of: Follow Delphi generics or not. And we don't know, where Delphi will go. They will not have generics in the next one and a half year and as always: They will do a few things completely different than expected. If we follow, then we will do, as Florian et al said. If not, then the <> is not the best solution. Is this correct so far? Mattias _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel