Alexander Klenin schrieb:
No, this example is not the reason to duplicate methods, since
C++ has a special mutable modifier to get around this specific problem.
Ah, this modifier was not yet available when I was coding C++ in the
early 90s. Good to know that we'll have implement the same
Max Vlasov schrieb:
drdiettri...@aol.com mailto:drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
My experience with const methods in C++ often resulted in a bunch
of cloned methods, with only calls to other non-const methods
removed - a maintenance nightmare :-(
Just curious, was it a fight with
Max Vlasov schrieb:
An idea here is to introduce a directive (maybe something else, but
directive looks more straightforward), let's call it readonly that
forces the method to be able only to read the fields and properties of
the object it belongs to and forbid any writing. Sure in this case
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
drdiettri...@aol.comwrote:
I thing there might be some logical contradictions I'm not aware at the
moment, but I think they can be resolved with general oop inheritance logic.
My experience with const methods in C++ often resulted in a
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 22:28, Max Vlasov max.vla...@gmail.com wrote:
Just curious, was it a fight with yourself or with someone else's code?
Sure I had no experience with const methods, but I just can't imagine how
function or procedures intended to caclulate/find/collect some information
from
Hi,
I thought about OOP recently, as many sometimes wonder that it's not as good
as it can be in some areas. For example, the OOP encapsulation is good, but
sometimes the developer doesn't track the context completely or makes other
bad things related to the hidden nature of encapsulation
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Max Vlasov wrote:
Hi,
I thought about OOP recently, as many sometimes wonder that it's not as good as
it can be in some areas. For example, the OOP encapsulation is good, but
sometimes the developer doesn't track the context completely or makes other
bad things related
26.11.2010 16:38, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Everything we introduced first Embarcadero has consistently done
different, so I would not hope for that.
Exit(Value) not.
Btw, maybe to discuss new features on Embarcadero forum too before the
final decision?
Best regards,
Paul Ishenin.
On Fri, 26 Nov 2010, Paul Ishenin wrote:
26.11.2010 16:38, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Everything we introduced first Embarcadero has consistently done different,
so I would not hope for that.
Exit(Value) not.
I don't see how they could have done that different :)
Michael.
26.11.2010 22:19, Max Vlasov wrote:
Paul, you mean encouraging them to implement this and return to this
discussion when D2011(12,13..) implements this? :) Just kidding
I think we need a collaboration between the communities and developers.
Copperative feature discussion can be a first step in
Max Vlasov пишет:
Speaking of new features, I remember the bunch of them were introduced
with Delphi 1.0 and many of them were inspired by other languages and
dialects. I admit that frequent implementing of features like the one I
suggested will make fpc more experimental and less solid.
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Sergei Gorelkin sergei_gorel...@mail.ruwrote:
Max Vlasov пишет:
Speaking of new features, I remember the bunch of them were introduced
with Delphi 1.0 and many of them were inspired by other languages and
dialects. I admit that frequent implementing of
On 11/26/2010 10:42 AM, Max Vlasov wrote:
Is anyone aware of similar concept in any other OOP language?
Yes, C++ has it:
http://duramecho.com/ComputerInformation/WhyHowCppConst.html
It's true that it's a little bit messy, but that's pretty much the norm
with everything in C++ ;-)
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Nikolay Nikolov
nick...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
On 11/26/2010 10:42 AM, Max Vlasov wrote:
Is anyone aware of similar concept in any other OOP language?
Yes, C++ has it:
http://duramecho.com/ComputerInformation/WhyHowCppConst.html
It's true that it's
14 matches
Mail list logo
