On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:24 AM, Martin Schreiber <mse00...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday 08 May 2017 22:44:39 Marcos Douglas B. Santos wrote:
>> On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Sieghard <s_c_...@arcor.de> wrote:
>> > Hallo Marcos,
>> >
>> > Du schriebst am Mon, 8 May 2017 13:12:19 -0300:
>> >> >> 2. In this case:
>> >> >>  obj2: ^objty; //on heap
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Is it possible to remove the "^"?
>> >> >> obj2.f1:= 123;
>> >> >
>> >> > No, obj2 is a pointer.
>> >> >
>> >> >> I think this distinction exists because "class" exists, right?
>> >
>> > How does that behave in case of _nested objects_, possibly with
>> > identically named fields, which might even be of different types? Is that
>> > manageable, or will the construct break down, at least on "pathological"
>> > casses?
>> >
>> > (I'm afraid it _will_ break down.)
>>
>> For me it would be the same as today, using classes.
>
> But classes always are a pointer to a memory area on heap. Objects can be in
> global static memory, on stack or on heap so I think it should be visible at
> element access if the object reference is an address or the content.
> "
> type
>  tcla = class
>  end;
>  objty = object
>   f1: int32;
>  end;
>  pobjty = ^objty;
>
> var
>  cla1: tcla;
>  cla2: tcla;
>  obj1: objty;
>  obj2: objty;
>  obj3: ^objty; //or pobjty
>  obj4: ^objty; //or pobjty
> begin
>  obj1: objty;
>  cla1:= cla2; //copies the address of content
>  obj1:= obj2; //copies the content
>  obj1.f1:= 123;
>  obj3:= obj4; //copies the address of content
>  obj3:= @obj2;//copies the address of content
>  obj3^.f1:= 123;
>   //or
>  with o: obj3^ do
>   o.f1:= 123;
>  end;

I understand your point of view but I think this could be confusing...
Well, first of all we should understand the proposal this new language:

1. Is it a low level language that will works like C to make libs, OS and so on?
2. Is it a high level language that abstract the details, but allow us
to use these details *if* we wish?

I see Object Pascal inside second option.

>> But Martin have already disagreed about this single syntax.
>>
> I must work some time with "object"s in order to decide if an
> additional "class" type is rectified.

Sounds good.


Marcos Douglas

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
mseide-msegui-talk mailing list
mseide-msegui-talk@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mseide-msegui-talk

Reply via email to