Am 29.08.2012 22:56 schrieb Arioch arioch...@gmail.com:
Surely 1949-styled Pascal can not make all that features 1st citizens.
The question is how much and in what style of compromise can be
implemented.
Generics were also heresy for original Pascal. But they are implemented,
some in Delphi
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Arioch wrote:
Florian Klämpfl wrote
This is the prototypical way to run a function over each element in a
collection, returning the results.
(map (lambda (x) (+ x 1)) '(1 2 3))
- (2 3 4)
I still don't see why this cannot be done by procedure variables: one
can
At 12:09 AM 8/30/2012, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
I don't think anonymous functions should be added to the compiler at all.
They are IMHO a negation of what pascal stands for. If your programming
style is so strange that you need lamba functions or anonymous functions,
then Pascal is
I'm curious: where do you get this 1948 date from? I'm not even sure
that assemblers (as we know them) existed in 1949...
Mark Morgan Lloyd
Damn! you're definitely right.
At vwery very least Pascal could not be before Algol-68, which could not be
before... ahem.
But now I wonder myself
-pascal] Re: Delphi's anonymous functions in Free Pascal
At 12:09 AM 8/30/2012, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
I don't think anonymous functions should be added to the compiler at all.
They are IMHO a negation of what pascal stands for. If your programming
style is so strange that you need lamba
Ralf A. Quint wrote
At 12:09 AM 8/30/2012, michael.vancanneyt@ wrote:
They are IMHO a negation of what pascal stands for. If your programming
+1
Well, the same should be told about everything modern pascal is.
Open and dynamic arrays, pointer math, objects, generics, even units.
It was
Sven Barth-2 wrote
Am 29.08.2012 22:56 schrieb Arioch lt;AriochThe@gt;:
I don't know whether you tested recent versions of FPC, but since 2.6.0
the
support for Delphi compatible generics improved, though generic
functions/methods and constraints are still missing.
Thanks. No, i just
: Jeudi 30 Août 2012 10:04:08
Objet: [fpc-pascal] Re: Delphi's anonymous functions in Free Pascal
Ralf A. Quint wrote
At 12:09 AM 8/30/2012, michael.vancanneyt@ wrote:
They are IMHO a negation of what pascal stands for. If your programming
+1
Well, the same should be told about everything modern
tcoq wrote
a laziness to software design: what you can't name you actually don't
design...
Guess you meant don't want to instead of can't
And You mean all the non-named arrays, don't you.
var x: array[0..10] of integer; is not only violating Pascal Report, but
also is twice lazy.
since
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Arioch wrote:
Ralf A. Quint wrote
At 12:09 AM 8/30/2012, michael.vancanneyt@ wrote:
They are IMHO a negation of what pascal stands for. If your programming
+1
Well, the same should be told about everything modern pascal is.
Open and dynamic arrays, pointer math,
for refactoring, i try removing some of
the more offending smells...
What's nice about Pascal is that we all smell them easily... ;-)
Thierry
- Mail original -
De: Arioch arioch...@gmail.com
À: fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Août 2012 10:18:31
Objet: [fpc-pascal] Re: Delphi's
Arioch wrote:
tcoq wrote
a laziness to software design: what you can't name you actually don't
design...
Guess you meant don't want to instead of can't
And You mean all the non-named arrays, don't you.
var x: array[0..10] of integer; is not only violating Pascal Report, but
also is twice
If the new features conform to the readability
That heavily depends upon which patterns are known to reader.
We all are patterns recognizers.
And today world is very different.
In my example sketch, the calling like Data.Filter( _.TotalSale 20 ) is
concise and easy to understand.
Okay, given
On 30/08/2012 09:04, Arioch wrote:
Ralf A. Quint wrote
At 12:09 AM 8/30/2012, michael.vancanneyt@ wrote:
They are IMHO a negation of what pascal stands for. If your
programming
+1
Well, the same should be told about everything modern pascal is.
Open and dynamic arrays, pointer
var x: array[0..10] of integer; also is twice lazy.
type
SomeEnumSemanticName = 0..10;
SomeEnumMapSemanticName = array[SomeEnumSemanticName] of integer;
var x: SomeEnumMapSemanticName;
Except that not defining a distinct type emphasises that the array is
only being declared
Pascal never was a toy language. It always have too much required
naming-and-declarations/boilerplate/obstacles/you-name-it
Basic, Logo - let them be. But not the Pascal.
It was educational language but it was damn serious educational language.
However i believe that your but pointer math is
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Arioch wrote:
If the new features conform to the readability
[snip]
But afterall i am quitting on that. Since FPC are lacking closures i am sure
here are mostly people who personally dislike them. I wanted to document why
closures are good and do matter. Hopefully
Regarding this: I wish to stress that my views on lambdas or closures are
my own;
For what i understand, those are different things.
Lambdas are runtime code generators and are out of question for natively
compiled language.
Closures are not.
Maybe that is nitpicking today, since the names seems
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Arioch wrote:
From personal experience, when i first time saw how pascalish is closures
implementation in Delphi i just admired the ease in which that concept was
fused into the language of very different style built upon very different
ideas. It was so elegant when
Thank you but I am a professional trainer for C++, Java, Ada and other
languages including Lisp. I am used to those languages. I consistently see
young professionals stumble upon those constructs they are used to.
Furthermore, all the professional users of the developed software are not used
In our previous episode, michael.vancann...@wisa.be said:
From personal experience, when i first time saw how pascalish is closures
implementation in Delphi i just admired the ease in which that concept was
fused into the language of very different style built upon very different
ideas. It
At 01:18 AM 8/30/2012, Arioch wrote:
tcoq wrote
a laziness to software design: what you can't name you actually don't
design...
Guess you meant don't want to instead of can't
And You mean all the non-named arrays, don't you.
var x: array[0..10] of integer; is not only violating Pascal
I still fail to see where annonymous functions could succeed where
functional types (part of pascal since last millenia) wouldnt...
2012/8/30 Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net:
At 01:18 AM 8/30/2012, Arioch wrote:
tcoq wrote
a laziness to software design: what you can't name you actually
On 30.08.2012 11:03, Arioch wrote:
But afterall i am quitting on that. Since FPC are lacking closures i am sure
here are mostly people who personally dislike them. I wanted to document why
closures are good and do matter. Hopefully i did it to the extent i was able
to. Surely i would not be able
Am 2012-08-30 18:29, schrieb Ralf A. Quint:
Pascal has evolved since Wirth's original design back in the 70s
This is true. But there are two aspects of the Pascal extensions of the last years
(decades) that contradict with what I would call the spirit of Pascal:
1.) Many extensions add to the
In our previous episode, Sven Barth said:
The closures (or anonymous functions as they are called in Delphi) are
missing, because none of the developers has them on the important slots
of the todo lists. So as long as nobody comes and implements them then
they are not going to be
Florian Klämpfl wrote
This is the prototypical way to run a function over each element in a
collection, returning the results.
(map (lambda (x) (+ x 1)) '(1 2 3))
- (2 3 4)
I still don't see why this cannot be done by procedure variables: one
can easily pass a procedure reference to a
Arioch wrote:
Here we are at dilemma. Pascal was devised in 1949 to look like Classic
monumental style building, or at least some manufacturing plant style
building made of bricks industrial way.
Functional style is like more like elegant houses made of paper and thin
plywood, something mayeb
On 8 November 2011 09:23, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Let me answer:
Writing an (L)GPL'ed pascal (*) compiler being self hosting.
From the man himself. OK good, so now we all know the goal is not one
of delphi compatible (that is rather limited only as a side effect -
nice to have), so please
On Tue, November 8, 2011 09:01, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 8 November 2011 09:23, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Let me answer:
Writing an (L)GPL'ed pascal (*) compiler being self hosting.
From the man himself. OK good, so now we all know the goal is not one
of delphi compatible (that is rather
2011/11/8 Tomas Hajny :
Examples?
I can list them all, but I'm not going to waist my time on them again.
Search the mailing list or Mantis.
But to humour you, here is just one of many examples: THelpEvent in
the RTL. I proposed a patch to change it to be more in line with FPC's
goals [being a
On Tuesday 08 November 2011 09.01:03 Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 8 November 2011 09:23, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Let me answer:
Writing an (L)GPL'ed pascal (*) compiler being self hosting.
From the man himself. OK good, so now we all know the goal is not one
of delphi compatible (that
In our previous episode, Martin Schreiber said:
nice to have), so please all core developers, stop using that as an
excuse to stop other FPC innovation. Over the years I have heard many
features being declined because they will not be delphi compatible.
I fear the opposite: all Delphi
On Tue, November 8, 2011 09:37, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
2011/11/8 Tomas Hajny :
Examples?
I can list them all, but I'm not going to waist my time on them again.
Search the mailing list or Mantis.
But to humour you, here is just one of many examples: THelpEvent in
the RTL. I proposed a
On Tuesday 08 November 2011 10.56:21 Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Martin Schreiber said:
nice to have), so please all core developers, stop using that as an
excuse to stop other FPC innovation. Over the years I have heard many
features being declined because they
Am 08.11.2011 09:37, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
2011/11/8 Tomas Hajny :
Examples?
I can list them all, but I'm not going to waist my time on them again.
Search the mailing list or Mantis.
But to humour you, here is just one of many examples: THelpEvent in
the RTL. I proposed a patch to
On 8 November 2011 12:43, Florian Klaempfl florian@f... wrote:
So you wanted to break existing stuff other people probably used? It is
indeed one of FPC's policy to avoid breakage of exisiting code.
Break what existing code? I searched all of FPC, Lazarus, Lazarus CCR
and MSEgui - there was no
On Sunday 06 November 2011 18.24:16 Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Also, implementing all existing language constructs from all other
languages into Pascal makes it a monster that no one can handle anymore.
Supporting Delphi code sounds good in the first place but in the end it
bloats the language
On 07 Nov 2011, at 08:10, Martin Schreiber wrote:
I don't understand why FPC should become a 100% Delphi clone instead
the best
general software development environment ever for the only purpose
that
Delphi users have a free cross platform alternative without to care
about FPC
On Monday 07 November 2011 10.55:41 Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 07 Nov 2011, at 08:10, Martin Schreiber wrote:
I don't understand why FPC should become a 100% Delphi clone instead
the best
general software development environment ever for the only purpose
that
Delphi users have a free cross
On 07 Nov 2011, at 11:28, Martin Schreiber wrote:
On Monday 07 November 2011 10.55:41 Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 07 Nov 2011, at 08:10, Martin Schreiber wrote:
One reason is to make it easy for FPC users to reuse existing Delphi
code that is out there without having to rewrite it in an FPC-
On 7/11/2011 07:28, Martin Schreiber wrote:
One reason is to make it easy for FPC users to reuse existing Delphi
code that is out there without having to rewrite it in an FPC-
compatible way.
Is there a big demand? Examples?
I speak only for myself.
This is a component that i'd like
On Monday 07 November 2011 17.02:59 Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote:
Is there a big demand? Examples?
I speak only for myself.
This is a component that i'd like to see compiled with fpc
http://code.google.com/p/emballo/
The problems
- generic support:
Jonas Maebe schrieb:
That's exactly what he said: you are free to create a fork (= take
the FPC source code and do whatever you want with it), and then the
currently active FPC developers are also free to take whichever of your
patches they consider useful. What's not possible is that other
In our previous episode, Martin Schreiber said:
So probably there are at least two different expectations into FPC which
can't
be fulfilled both: best general purpose software development environment
ever and 100% current Delphi compatibility.
That current is added by you. FPC strives to
On 07 Nov 2011, at 18:45, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Jonas Maebe schrieb:
That's exactly what he said: you are free to create a fork (= take the FPC
source code and do whatever you want with it), and then the currently active
FPC developers are also free to take whichever of your patches
Jonas Maebe schrieb:
That's exactly what he said: you are free to create a fork
This argument is pulled out each time someone suggest things that
the main developers don't like.
The reason that this argument is always used is simply because that
is simply how it is.
I know that. But still:
On 7 November 2011 20:41, Marco van de Voort wrote:
That current is added by you. FPC strives to do that of course, but never
had the illusion it was near enough to claim something like that. Not now,
and not in the past.
So what exactly is the goals of FPC then? And please don't tell me
Am 08.11.2011 07:20, schrieb Jürgen Hestermann:
Jonas Maebe schrieb:
That's exactly what he said: you are free to create a fork
This argument is pulled out each time someone suggest things that the
main developers don't like.
The reason that this argument is always used is simply because that
Am 08.11.2011 07:35, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
On 7 November 2011 20:41, Marco van de Voort wrote:
That current is added by you. FPC strives to do that of course, but never
had the illusion it was near enough to claim something like that. Not now,
and not in the past.
So what exactly is
Am 05.11.2011 22:58, schrieb Alexander Shishkin:
06.11.2011 1:46, Michael Van Canneyt пишет:
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011, Bernd wrote:
2011/10/25 michael.vancann...@wisa.be:
targethread.queue(
procedure(targetobject:ttargetobject;a:integer;b:someobject;c:string)
begin
2011/11/6 Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org:
I am not against closure functionality, although I highly doubt it is *that*
useful as some people make it out to be. Even so, I use it in my Javascript
programming.
I'm also not entirely sure about the necessity of closures in OP, but
I
06.11.2011 15:53, Florian Klämpfl пишет:
Am 05.11.2011 22:58, schrieb Alexander Shishkin:
06.11.2011 1:46, Michael Van Canneyt пишет:
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011, Bernd wrote:
2011/10/25michael.vancann...@wisa.be:
targethread.queue(
2011/11/6 Florian Klämpfl flor...@freepascal.org:
It would be probably more clear to write and this more pascalish:
Procedure SomeOuter;
Var
d,e,f : SomeType;
Lambda Procedure
SomeInner(targetobject:ttargetobject;a:integer;b:someobject;c:string)
begin
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Alexander Shishkin alexv...@mail.ru wrote:
OK, agreed, this is more readable than Delphi syntax. But ...
1) If we implement lamdas is FPC we will have to support Delphi syntax.
Hi-jacking, the thread, and again should FPC chase Delphi forever?
Their technical
On 06 Nov 2011, at 15:13, dmitry boyarintsev wrote:
Hi-jacking, the thread, and again should FPC chase Delphi forever?
If we want to offer compatibility with source code written for Delphi, which
does happen to be one of FPC's project goals, then yes, we do have to do that
to some extent.
06.11.2011 18:13, dmitry boyarintsev пишет:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Alexander Shishkinalexv...@mail.ru wrote:
OK, agreed, this is more readable than Delphi syntax. But ...
1) If we implement lamdas is FPC we will have to support Delphi syntax.
Hi-jacking, the thread, and again should
Am 06.11.2011 15:13, schrieb dmitry boyarintsev:
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:00 AM, Alexander Shishkin alexv...@mail.ru wrote:
OK, agreed, this is more readable than Delphi syntax. But ...
1) If we implement lamdas is FPC we will have to support Delphi syntax.
Hi-jacking, the thread, and again
Florian Klämpfl schrieb:
Am 06.11.2011 15:13, schrieb dmitry boyarintsev:
Hi-jacking, the thread, and again should FPC chase Delphi forever?
You mix here result and goal. If FPC supports new Delphi constructs
depends on the fact if somebody provides a patch. No more, no less.
I have the same
Florian Klämpfl schrieb:
I have the same feeling as Dmitry: There must be a time when FPC does
not run after Delphi. Why not now?
Feel free to start a fork and we will see what will make it into trunk.
Sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about. Isn't it you (and a
few others) who
On 06 Nov 2011, at 19:21, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Florian Klämpfl schrieb:
I have the same feeling as Dmitry: There must be a time when FPC does
not run after Delphi. Why not now?
Feel free to start a fork and we will see what will make it into trunk.
Sorry, but I don't know what you
Am 06.11.2011 19:21, schrieb Jürgen Hestermann:
Florian Klämpfl schrieb:
I have the same feeling as Dmitry: There must be a time when FPC does
not run after Delphi. Why not now?
Feel free to start a fork and we will see what will make it into trunk.
Sorry, but I don't know what you are
2011/10/25 michael.vancann...@wisa.be:
targethread.queue(
procedure(targetobject:ttargetobject;a:integer;b:someobject;c:string)
begin
targetobject.destinationprocedure(a,b,c);
end;
Note how common this looks compared to the original.
One point is
2011/10/25 Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl:
Equivalent solution with anon functions:
targethread.queue(
procedure(targetobject:ttargetobject;a:integer;b:someobject;c:string)
begin
targetobject.destinationprocedure(a,b,c);
end;
shouldn't this be
In our previous episode, Bernd said:
Equivalent solution with anon functions:
targethread.queue(
? procedure(targetobject:ttargetobject;a:integer;b:someobject;c:string)
? ? ? ? ? ? ?begin
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?targetobject.destinationprocedure(a,b,c);
? ? ? ? ? ? ?end;
shouldn't this be
05.11.2011 22:42, Bernd пишет:
2011/10/25michael.vancann...@wisa.be:
targethread.queue(
procedure(targetobject:ttargetobject;a:integer;b:someobject;c:string)
begin
targetobject.destinationprocedure(a,b,c);
end;
Note how common this looks compared to
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011, Bernd wrote:
2011/10/25 michael.vancann...@wisa.be:
targethread.queue(
procedure(targetobject:ttargetobject;a:integer;b:someobject;c:string)
begin
targetobject.destinationprocedure(a,b,c);
end;
Note how common this looks compared
06.11.2011 1:46, Michael Van Canneyt пишет:
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011, Bernd wrote:
2011/10/25 michael.vancann...@wisa.be:
targethread.queue(
procedure(targetobject:ttargetobject;a:integer;b:someobject;c:string)
begin
targetobject.destinationprocedure(a,b,c);
2011/11/5 Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org:
Procedure SomeOuter;
Var
d,e,f : SomeType;
Procedure
SomeInner(targetobject:ttargetobject;a:integer;b:someobject;c:string)
begin
targetobject.destinationprocedure(a,b,c);
end;
begin
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011, Bernd wrote:
A closure has enclosed variables from the surrounding scope where it
was created, hence the name 'closure'. You cannot do this with a
procedure variable alone, you need an object on the heap to contain
the enclosed variables. The Delphi compiler will behind
On 25/10/2011 12:52, Marco van de Voort wrote:
One can debate the syntax. I won't, since even while I have similar
reservations, that will lead to the usual Delphi sucks debate, possible
implementation of an-orphaned-at-birth FPC specific syntax, and in the end
the Delphi syntax always
On 26/10/2011 09:44, Lukasz Sokol wrote:
On 25/10/2011 12:52, Marco van de Voort wrote:
One can debate the syntax. I won't, since even while I have
similar reservations, that will lead to the usual Delphi sucks
debate, possible implementation of an-orphaned-at-birth FPC
specific syntax, and
+1
- Mail Original -
De: Graeme Geldenhuys graemeg.li...@gmail.com
À: FPC-Pascal users discussions fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
Envoyé: Vendredi 21 Octobre 2011 10h03:27 GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Berne
/ Rome / Stockholm / Vienne
Objet: Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Delphi's anonymous
In our previous episode, t...@free.fr said:
it will be more readable (imo)? The example still does not take
This seldom happens, but here I fully agree with Florian. ;-) Every
example of anonymous methods I have seen so far, can easily be done with
OP's procedure variables too. Maybe
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, t...@free.fr said:
it will be more readable (imo)? The example still does not take
This seldom happens, but here I fully agree with Florian. ;-) Every
example of anonymous methods I have seen so far, can easily be done
In our previous episode, michael.vancann...@wisa.be said:
targethread.queue(
procedure(targetobject:ttargetobject;a:integer;b:someobject;c:string)
begin
targetobject.destinationprocedure(a,b,c);
end;
Note how common this looks compared to
On Tue, 25 Oct 2011, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, michael.vancann...@wisa.be said:
targethread.queue(
procedure(targetobject:ttargetobject;a:integer;b:someobject;c:string)
begin
targetobject.destinationprocedure(a,b,c);
end;
On 10/21/2011 01:25, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Florian Klämpfl schrieb:
If anybody does not see why increasing complexity without a good reason
should be avoided, I recommend:
I agree wholeheartly. In the past Pascal was a simple still powerfull language
but meanwhile it has become a
Am 21.10.2011 03:49, schrieb Andrew Pennebaker:
Lisp used for nuclear fail-safe systems
I doubt languages without /map/ are up to the job.
Great, why don't you continue to use lisp then? If pascal does not
offers the language concepts you are used to, pascal is the wrong
language for you.
2011/10/21 Jürgen Hestermann juergen.hesterm...@gmx.de
Florian Klämpfl schrieb:
If anybody does not see why increasing complexity without a good reason
should be avoided, I recommend:
I agree wholeheartly. In the past Pascal was a simple still powerfull
language but meanwhile it has
Maybe anonymous methods were introduced
in other languages because they didn't have something like OP's
procedure variables
IMO, it's because they're lazy to declare things before they use it. Often,
an anonymous function which first used just once eventually used more than
once. When that
Juha Manninen schrieb:
Please look at some old Pascal code from 80's. Lots of shortstring
manipulation with pointers. Very much comparable to C, and as prone to
errors as C.
Yes, new string types were needed. But why not doing it right in one
step? Instead we now have lots of different
The link below describes two uses for anonymous methods.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7818759/delphi-anonymus-methods-pro-and-cons-good-practices-when-using-closuresanony/7821882#comment9576663_7821882
I don't entirely subscribe to the (1) one, it seems to be mostly a shorthand
argument.
Am 19.10.2011 23:28, schrieb Andrew Pennebaker:
From what I gather, procedure variables can indeed be referenced and
passed around, etc.
However, procedures do not return anything, so it's hard to chain them.
In functional languages, it's handy to do several nested map(map(map f
... calls.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Andrew Pennebaker
andrew.penneba...@gmail.com wrote:
However, procedures do not return anything, so it's hard to chain them. In
functional languages, it's handy to do several nested map(map(map f ...
calls.
So just make a function instead of a procedure?
--
Am 19.10.2011 23:28, schrieb Andrew Pennebaker:
From what I gather, procedure variables can indeed be referenced and
passed around, etc.
However, procedures do not return anything, so it's hard to chain them.
They are called procedure variables but can also contain functions.
In functional
- Original Message -
Am 19.10.2011 20:23, schrieb Andrew Pennebaker:
Practical uses for referencable anonymous functions:
For such applications one uses procedure variables in pascal.
(map (lambda (x) (+ x 1)) '(1 2 3))
- (2 3 4)
[snip!]
I still don't see why this cannot
Am 20.10.2011 21:09, schrieb Gregory M. Turner:
Interesting discussion -- at least for me, I didn't know Delphi had this
feature.
In case anyone really doesn't see the point, consider that this thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYw2ewoO6c4
has all the capabilities of Object
- Original Message -
Am 20.10.2011 21:09, schrieb Gregory M. Turner:
In case anyone really doesn't see the point, consider that this
thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYw2ewoO6c4
If anybody does not see why increasing complexity without a good
reason
should be
2011/10/20 Florian Klämpfl flor...@freepascal.org
If anybody does not see why increasing complexity without a good reason
should be avoided, I recommend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYUrqdUyEpI
:-)
There is lots of confusion about anonymous functions. The name is
misleading, they are
Am 20.10.2011 22:31, schrieb Juha Manninen:
They have some very important uses, like making multithreading easier.
I copy text from Delphi help page again here because it looks so cool:
The same can be done with fpc (nested if needed) procedure variables and
it will be more readable (imo)?
On 10/20/2011 15:17, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
Am 20.10.2011 21:09, schrieb Gregory M. Turner:
Interesting discussion -- at least for me, I didn't know Delphi had this
feature.
In case anyone really doesn't see the point, consider that this thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYw2ewoO6c4
On 10/20/2011 16:35, Juha Manninen wrote:
2011/10/20 Gregory M. Turner g...@malth.us mailto:g...@malth.us
Good point. I guess nothing's O(free lunch).
Yes, the downside here is that the concept is very different from any syntax in
OP. It will be difficult to learn properly.
i still
If anybody does not see why increasing complexity without a good reason
should be avoided, I recommend:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYUrqdUyEpI
Lisp used for nuclear fail-safe
Florian Klämpfl schrieb:
If anybody does not see why increasing complexity without a good reason
should be avoided, I recommend:
I agree wholeheartly. In the past Pascal was a simple still powerfull
language but meanwhile it has become a catchment tank for all features
of all other
Am 18.10.2011 21:42, schrieb Sven Barth:
For anonymous functions you can take a look at Embarcadero's Delphi help
here:
http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/en/Anonymous_Methods_in_Delphi
The Embarcadero style of anonymous functions does not satify me.
myFunc := function(x, y: Integer):
Am 19.10.2011 09:31, schrieb Michael Fuchs:
I would prefer a style like
myfunc := @function(x, y: Integer): Integer Result := x + y;
And how would you create more complex functions? In Pascal code blocks
are started with begin and ended with end. I don't see a reason why
anonymous methods
Hi Andrew,
first of all my /first/ name is Lukasz. Would you /like/ me to use your
surname to refer to yourself ?
Second you seem to be sending the same message twice in one post (once as
plain text the other as HTML) and quoted/printable encoding to make matters
even worse. Please teach your
Am 19.10.2011 10:16, schrieb Sven Barth:
I would prefer a style like
myfunc := @function(x, y: Integer): Integer Result := x + y;
And how would you create more complex functions? In Pascal code blocks
are started with begin and ended with end. I don't see a reason why
anonymous methods should
Hmm... I'm not really sure though, but I guess you could make use of array
of const feature. See the documentation here:
http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/ref/refsu60.html
--
View this message in context:
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
