Am 12.12.2019 um 23:24 schrieb Ryan Joseph via fpc-devel:
On Dec 12, 2019, at 11:13 AM, Martin Frb wrote:
I brought an example, where actually the "drop [] for last param" would break
code.
Therefore it no longer matters if it is or is not against good design. Dropping
the [], (in the new
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
Hm. I modified the delphi program to check. It also works with a
variable...
What kind of braindead "feature" is this ? :(
I don't know why Borland decided to add this back then, but the
implementation itself is rather easy as an open
> On Dec 12, 2019, at 11:13 AM, Martin Frb wrote:
>
> I brought an example, where actually the "drop [] for last param" would break
> code.
> Therefore it no longer matters if it is or is not against good design.
> Dropping the [], (in the new case, for last param) will break code that
>
Am 12.12.2019 um 17:23 schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Martin Frb wrote:
On 12/12/2019 17:14, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
For array of const it is not allowed, but any other open array
parameter
allows it.
Really, are
Am 12.12.2019 um 17:20 schrieb Martin Frb:
On 12/12/2019 17:14, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
For array of const it is not allowed, but any other open array
parameter
allows it.
Really, are you sure ? Since when is this allowed ?
It works
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Martin Frb wrote:
On 12/12/2019 17:23, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
What kind of braindead "feature" is this ? :(
Could it be called: Delphi compatibility ? ;) :( :(
Probably.
Well, it's not the first time the brains of the Delphi developers took a day off
when they
On 12/12/2019 17:05, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
For array of const it is not allowed, but any other open array
parameter allows it.
Ah, interesting.
So then there stands my point from the first mail I wroth in this thread:
IIRC
- the "do not drop []" arguments, where based on design
On 12/12/2019 17:23, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
What kind of braindead "feature" is this ? :(
Could it be called: Delphi compatibility ? ;) :( :(
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Martin Frb wrote:
On 12/12/2019 17:14, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
For array of const it is not allowed, but any other open array parameter
allows it.
Really, are you sure ? Since when is this allowed ?
It works
On 12/12/2019 17:14, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
For array of const it is not allowed, but any other open array parameter
allows it.
Really, are you sure ? Since when is this allowed ?
It works with a variable in the param list, but not
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt schrieb am Do., 12. Dez. 2019,
15:34:
It was already mentioned, that the [] can be dropped if the array has
*exactly one* element.
Not sure what you mean here, but
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt schrieb am Do., 12. Dez. 2019,
15:34:
It was already mentioned, that the [] can be dropped if the array has
*exactly one* element.
Not sure what you mean here, but even if there is only 1 argument, today
the []
Michael Van Canneyt schrieb am Do., 12. Dez. 2019,
15:34:
> > It was already mentioned, that the [] can be dropped if the array has
> > *exactly one* element.
>
> Not sure what you mean here, but even if there is only 1 argument, today
> the [] cannot be dropped:
>
> home:~> cat tf.pp
> program
On 12/12/2019 15:34, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Martin Frb wrote:
That still would not break, but it actually is the base for something
that would break.
The point was to demonstrate that array of const is 1 argument. It is
not equal to a variable number of arguments.
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Martin Frb wrote:
It does gain something: it tells you it is NOT a varargs, but an
array of
const, which is a different beast altogether.
But it's a syntax equivalent for "a variable amount of arguments",
i.e. varargs. ;) I guess others don't see it this way however.
On 12/12/2019 08:51, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Ryan Joseph via fpc-devel wrote:
On Dec 11, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
It does gain something: it tells you it is NOT a varargs, but an
array of
const, which is a different beast altogether.
But
16 matches
Mail list logo
