-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > The _ trick is widely used indeed, but imho those underscores make > > code slightly less readable and also less aesthetic. > > Less readable than & ? What is the exact aesthetic ranking of > [EMAIL PROTECTED]&*()_+ then? :-)
& is an proper escaping mechanism. Renaming the imported symbol with an _ is a hack, and not a pretty one (IMHO, YMMV), as _ is a valid character in identifiers so there might already be a symbol defined with the same name as the one you want to give your renamed imported symbol. What then? You'll have to further rename one of the 2. And that might conflict with something else again and you could end up with a complete chain of renamed symbols. Any renaming involving characters that are valid in identifiers just creates the possibility for more conflicts. And if you are then looking at the documentation or original source of whatever you imported and and what to use it you have to figure out all the time what the new name of the symbols is. On the other hand with a well defined escaping mechanism you use the original symbol names as given, if there is a conflict you use the escape operator. Always exactly the same. And looking at your code all the identifiers match exactly with the source, documentation and examples of whatever you imported. Cheers, Thorsten -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFFtePktgfmGfGfuPARAiNGAJwM45xHByIYb946jPIgx9ij9MtqPQCeIIfu bnXa1TrrudcI64QYOc5RBEU= =A2Xp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
