On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:07:42 +0100 > Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Params are passed to a procedure define like > > > > procedure MyProc(param, param, ..) > > > > Arrays are declared like > > > > A: array[0..9] of ... > > > > And generics.... they are soly defined by the fact that a type has <> in it. > > Well generics *are* a kind of "parameterised" type. When you choose types > for the parameters, then the type is fully defined, just like the result of > a not-with-outside-interacting procedure would be when it's parameters are > filled in. When you view it this way, Bram has a point. > > I am still a proponent of a keyword btw, which I've documented at wiki: > > http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/Generics#Terms > > (just scroll a little upwards). This is because it generalizes better to > function generics, I think that in "Max<T: TSomeType>(Foo: Type): T" the > last T feels "out-of-scope", while it doesn't when you have the generic > keyword because you're defining a "function generic(T) ..." > > Of course, these are all minor details compared to actual implementation. I second this proposal. But I _don't_ think that this is a minor detail. One of the nice things about (Object) Pascal is the readability. The <> does away with that. Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
