On 11/22/2013 06:25 PM, August Oktobar wrote:
What about multiple return values (e.g. in Golang)?
... In effect making function results out variables.
With that you also could vote for deamons (the previous value of the
variable to be set by a function can be seen within a function, in
On 11/22/2013 06:52 PM, Ivanko B wrote:
How looks the call of the function?
==
Smth like in Python:
(var1,var2):= MultResFunc(arg1,arg2);
In Python, the (var1,var2) syntax has other effects on it's own, as well
IIRC, in a language I used some 100 years ago (called PLZ
On Monday 25 November 2013 09:30:36 Michael Schnell wrote:
On 11/22/2013 06:55 PM, Martin Schreiber wrote:
{$rtti on}
property prop1: int32 read fprop1 write fprop1; //streamed
{$rtti off}
To me this looks worse than just published (it does not make much
sense to allow for rtti
On 11/25/2013 09:36 AM, Michael Schnell wrote:
With that you also could vote for deamons (the previous value of the
variable to be set by a function can be seen within a function, in
effect making function results var variables.
Sorry, this was incorrect.
Daemons in this context are
On 11/24/2013 08:44 AM, Martin Schreiber wrote:
On Saturday 23 November 2013 21:23:11 Ivanko B wrote:
:= 'The string result: '+avalue;
=
:= instead of exposing Result ? Looks interesting.
It is mandatory and allowed as last statement only.
I also think this is a nice idea.
On 11/24/2013 02:48 PM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
But if 'return' exists, why I will use ':= value'??? Two ways to do
the same?
...like in C ?
return lvalue;
might be a synonym for
:= lrvalue;
return;
-Michael
--
Shape
.. or
:= lrvalue;
exit;
-Michael
--
Shape the Mobile Experience: Free Subscription
Software experts and developers: Be at the forefront of tech innovation.
Intel(R) Software Adrenaline delivers strategic insight and
On 11/24/2013 05:21 PM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
I disagree that a program without 'return' or 'exit' uses a more safe
coding style.
+1;
you often would need to use break and/or clumsy constructs using flags
or even goto.
IMHO, each of this makes the code less readable.
-Michael
On 11/24/2013 05:41 PM, Ivanko B wrote:
Also how about BREAK(nesting_level) NEXT(nesting_level) ? Some
languages provide that and one is quite handy.
Nesting levels are just horrible, as you will regularly forget to
change them appropriately when you add a new nesting level to your code.
On Monday 25 November 2013 10:24:40 Michael Schnell wrote:
On 11/24/2013 05:21 PM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
I disagree that a program without 'return' or 'exit' uses a more safe
coding style.
+1;
you often would need to use break and/or clumsy constructs using flags
or even goto.
IMHO,
On 11/25/2013 10:43 AM, Martin Schreiber wrote:
You and Marcos probably never had to debug code with common necessary
cleanup at procedure end and a deeply nested sometimes triggered
'exit' which bypassed the cleanup accidentally. It happened several
times to me...
I do see the argument
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Michael Schnell mschn...@lumino.de wrote:
On 11/25/2013 10:43 AM, Martin Schreiber wrote:
You and Marcos probably never had to debug code with common necessary
cleanup at procedure end and a deeply nested sometimes triggered
'exit' which bypassed the cleanup
A project maintained via a GIT repository.
WORK: IDE DB-setup variant 1
HOME: IDE DB-setup variant 2 which differs from the WORK
To avoid GIT insonsistence (overiding the DB-setup in MFM-file at
other workplace on GIT PULL), and to avoid errors on loading the
project to IDE, we could put the
On Monday 25 November 2013 14:22:00 Ivanko B wrote:
A project maintained via a GIT repository.
WORK: IDE DB-setup variant 1
HOME: IDE DB-setup variant 2 which differs from the WORK
To avoid GIT insonsistence (overiding the DB-setup in MFM-file at
other workplace on GIT PULL), and to avoid
Try to make a local branch with the HOME DB-setup.
===
Any suggesion how to share GIT PUSH GIT PULL for the two versions
provided that really only a single MFM file needs the special handling
?
--
a single MFM file needs the special handling
==
BTW, this file is largest most complicated file in the project
(DMMAINMO in the PODPISKA). Editing checking it twice is boring
error-prone :)
--
Shape
On Monday 25 November 2013 16:44:50 Ivanko B wrote:
Try to make a local branch with the HOME DB-setup.
===
Any suggesion how to share GIT PUSH GIT PULL for the two versions
provided that really only a single MFM file needs the special handling
?
I don't know, I use
a unit for the connection component only.
==
Or MFM-including :)
--
Shape the Mobile Experience: Free Subscription
Software experts and developers: Be at the forefront of tech innovation.
Intel(R) Software
18 matches
Mail list logo
