On Tuesday 13 June 2017 22:29:21 Sieghard wrote: > Using this as a reference, a syntax like > > MethodType = object function (<parameterlist): <result type>; > or > MethodVariable: object function (<parameterlist): <result type>; > > might be considered. Yes, this is more typing. > (Perhaps abbreviate it with just usind a (leading) period? Like > ".function (<parameterlist): <result type>;" Nay, too C-ish...) > What is wrong with "method" instead of "object function"?
> > [Pascal-ish "with"] > > > The problem is that if there are members added to the referenced "with" > > container they override elements with the same name and type in existing > > code. > > Only if not explicitely qualified - you can always "break out" of the > current scope using qualifiers. For the current object, the qualifier > is always "self". And for elements outside of any object context, it is the > unit name. What's your problem then? and how should the Modula variant be > better in that respect? > Example: " unit widgets interface type pointty = record x,y: int32; end; cwidget = class() pos: pointty; end; " " unit test uses widgets; procedure test(); var widget: cwidget; left: int32; [...] with widget do pos.x:= left; end; " Now the author of the widget library adds a new property to "cwidget" " cwidget = class() pos: pointty; property left: int32 read pos.x write pos.x; end; " and brakes the functionality of your "test()" procedure. Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ mseide-msegui-talk mailing list mseide-msegui-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mseide-msegui-talk
