On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 10:14 PM Ben Grasset <operato...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I mean, like *many, many, many *things, yes it is technically possible > for that to be valid Pascal syntax. As far as *should*, well, I'm not > personally a fan of that sort of too-many-parentheses typecasting, but I > wouldn't specifically care one way or another if it was added as there's no > reason for me to. > > I fail to see how that is anything more than *distantly *related to what > we're discussing in this thread, though. > Distantly? you're proposing to introduce a reference-to-type declaration within a parameter. Without giving it any name. Fine. But that would requires a type-casting within the code to the same type as has been declared within the parameter. Otherwise you're creating some type, that cannot be casted-to. Which is odd. So if you're fan of having ^Integer as a parameter type, then you pretty much self-declaring to be a fan of (^Integer)(varname) as well. In general I'm not really interested in playing this sort of FUD-ish *"if > we add X, it's gonna lead down the road to Largely Unrelated Y!" * > back-and-forth game, as I find it both childish and a waste of time as > it's almost always highly unrealistic with regards to whatever is being > talked about. > It's kinda what language designers HAVE to do. It's nice just to throw out the "next-big-thing-cool-idea" out there and make yourself look smart. But you actually HAVE to think everything through. If you don't then your idea might not be so cool after all. thanks, Dmitry
_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
