05.12.2016, 13:35, "Sven Barth" <pascaldra...@googlemail.com>:
I really don't get why some people think of generics as complex -.-
Exactly for the cited reason. See below.
> Using plain old arrays, requires reinventing the wheel because you end up
> writing duplicate functions for each array type (array of string) instead
> of a general purpose algorithm for many types..
> writing duplicate functions for each array type (array of string) instead
> of a general purpose algorithm for many types..
It's not possible to get uniform interfaces that would play nice with algorithms.
Try writing a _single_ function for sorting static arrays, dynamic arrays,open arrays, generic containers(T*List * all value types).
The standard recipe is re-implement everything from scratch over and over again.
Even now, when we have generic functions - I am forced to specialize them by hand! Even C# got it right...
Another issue is that some special functions are considered "special" - you cannot overload them (SetLength, Copy, ...).
Yet another thing is that arrays are nice value-pretending types (refcouting), but most generics are classes!
We desperately need http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=30687 to get record based generics value types back to the language.
Basically it's all about combinatorics when combining functions.
Either compiler does it for you, or you are forced to do it manually instead.
To sum up, generics in current implementation add too little while exploding combinatorial variety of algorithms.
--
Regards,
Regards,
Denis Golovan
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
