On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys <gra...@geldenhuys.co.uk> wrote: > On 2013-03-04 01:47, Boian Mitov wrote: >> vast improvements of the code and the readability. > > They are unreadable to me. > >> I recently started >> rewriting our libraries with anonymous methods and that alone allowed for >> cutting over 20000 lines of code > > Just my dropping method names? I doubt that. > > ps: > You do know that the Object Pascal language already supports things like > method pointers, so passing methods to a procedure common - plus it has > the benefit that the method is well named (so you know what it should be > doing). > > Anonymous methods seem to be exactly what existing method pointers are, > but with the downside that they are obscure (no names to hint to what > they do), and defined in the wrong place in code. > > >> If you have never developed with them, (as was I), you never know what you >> have been missing. > > This is what I am trying to find out. So far, with everything I have > read and seen. I can do the same thing in code, using method pointers > and it will be more structured code (with names and defined in the > correct location in my unit]. I simply don't see a need for anonymous > methods. Maybe other languages have them, because they didn't have the > method pointer construct to start with?
+1 Marcos Douglas _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
