[fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
On 29/03/2013 09:53, Jürgen Hestermann wrote: [...] To program nowadays it already requires a lot of other things to learn (different OSs and interfaces). I see no need to add even more to that by adding features over and over again. Pascal was successful because it was easy and clear. Now it becomes complex and cluttered. I can't agree with you... If it wasn't for 'things to learn', Pascal would still be stuck at Borland Turbo Pascal 6 level (that's the one I remember learning at school). And since the 'novelties' of classes, interfaces (which nb. I can't seem to bend my head round yet) do increase complexity, that make the language look cluttered, some features designed to simplify managing the clutter should be welcome... (and no, CodeTools and Lazarus ain't always the answer for everybody) [case in point: the try...[except]...[finally]...[except]...end; I wrote about some time before] L. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
Am 02.04.2013 11:03, schrieb Lukasz Sokol: [case in point: the try...[except]...[finally]...[except]...end; I wrote about some time before] Which reminds me: would you please be so kind to create a feature request for this, so it won't be forgotten? Regards, Sven ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
On 02/04/2013 13:18, Sven Barth wrote: Am 02.04.2013 11:03, schrieb Lukasz Sokol: [case in point: the try...[except]...[finally]...[except]...end; I wrote about some time before] Which reminds me: would you please be so kind to create a feature request for this, so it won't be forgotten? Regards, Sven OK, signing up to mantis :) L. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
On 02/04/2013 13:32, Lukasz Sokol wrote: On 02/04/2013 13:18, Sven Barth wrote: Am 02.04.2013 11:03, schrieb Lukasz Sokol: [case in point: the try...[except]...[finally]...[except]...end; I wrote about some time before] Which reminds me: would you please be so kind to create a feature request for this, so it won't be forgotten? Regards, Sven OK, signing up to mantis :) L. Issue #0024216 . L. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
Am 02.04.2013 15:14, schrieb Lukasz Sokol: On 02/04/2013 13:32, Lukasz Sokol wrote: On 02/04/2013 13:18, Sven Barth wrote: Am 02.04.2013 11:03, schrieb Lukasz Sokol: [case in point: the try...[except]...[finally]...[except]...end; I wrote about some time before] Which reminds me: would you please be so kind to create a feature request for this, so it won't be forgotten? Regards, Sven OK, signing up to mantis :) L. Issue #0024216 . Thank you. Regards, Sven ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
Am 2013-03-29 11:20, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd: What is it about Pascal programmers and their assumption that verbosity is a prerequisite to clarity? Why do you think nobody is writing text in stenography? It would be much less text to write. But we use standard languages which have a lot of redundancy. This has the advantage that errors can easily be detected and often can also be corrected. With no redundancy this is not possible. The same applies to programming languages. And that makes (made) Pascal much clearer than C. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
Jürgen Hestermann wrote: Am 2013-03-29 11:20, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd: What is it about Pascal programmers and their assumption that verbosity is a prerequisite to clarity? Why do you think nobody is writing text in stenography? It would be much less text to write. But we use standard languages which have a lot of redundancy. This has the advantage that errors can easily be detected and often can also be corrected. With no redundancy this is not possible. The same applies to programming languages. And that makes (made) Pascal much clearer than C. So how is something like the += idiom, which seems to be unpopular because it's not Pascal, unclear? Or for that matter how can braces as distinct from Pascal-style begin-end make a language inferior when their use is unambiguous? The biggest threat to clarity comes from excessive overloading: use of [] for array subscripts and set elements, use of () for statement grouping, function parameters and so on, multiple function definitions distinguished by their parameters, class/type helpers, and in particular automatic type conversions. Not that I'm suggesting that any of these be ripped out of the language, but my own belief is that notational shortcuts such as += cannot be criticised on the grounds that they sacrifice clarity or compromise error handling. -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues] ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
On 29.03.2013 02:21, leledumbo wrote:
Good point. So to be consistent, don't turn it on :-)
NEVER turn it on for me :-)
If you use a compiler without a preset fpc.cfg than it's disabled by
default. It needs to be switched on using -Sc or {$COPERATORS ON}.
If only I'm the core dev, I would mark the C operator feature as deprecated
and remove it in the next major version.
[Note: No personal attack intended with the next sentence] In that case
I think we are lucky that you aren't a core dev :P
We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no
matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad...
Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
Am 29.03.2013 10:35, schrieb Sven Barth:
On 29.03.2013 02:21, leledumbo wrote:
Good point. So to be consistent, don't turn it on :-)
NEVER turn it on for me :-)
If you use a compiler without a preset fpc.cfg than it's disabled by
default. It needs to be switched on using -Sc or {$COPERATORS ON}.
If only I'm the core dev, I would mark the C operator feature as
deprecated
and remove it in the next major version.
[Note: No personal attack intended with the next sentence] In that case
I think we are lucky that you aren't a core dev :P
We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no
matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad...
The C-style operators have a special status anyways: they were one of
the first third party contributions to fpc somewhere in spring '96 :)
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
In our previous episode, Florian Kl?mpfl said: and remove it in the next major version. [Note: No personal attack intended with the next sentence] In that case I think we are lucky that you aren't a core dev :P We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad... The C-style operators have a special status anyways: they were one of the first third party contributions to fpc somewhere in spring '96 :) Even if you don't like them (like me), they are occasionally handy when translating C code. Avoids introducing errors. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
Am 2013-03-29 10:35, schrieb Sven Barth: We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad... But that's not the point here. The problem has nothing to do with backward compatibility. Just the opposite. If you incorporate each and every feature from any other language then you no longer have Pascal. The end would be that you can write whatever language you want, the compiler will understand it. This may look like a benefit but after all you cannot be sure to understand source code written for this compiler anymore. It would require learning all the many languages that exist within Object Pascal. To program nowadays it already requires a lot of other things to learn (different OSs and interfaces). I see no need to add even more to that by adding features over and over again. Pascal was successful because it was easy and clear. Now it becomes complex and cluttered. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
Sven Barth wrote: If only I'm the core dev, I would mark the C operator feature as deprecated and remove it in the next major version. [Note: No personal attack intended with the next sentence] In that case I think we are lucky that you aren't a core dev :P We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad... What is it about Pascal programmers and their assumption that verbosity is a prerequisite to clarity? Elsewhere, I see an otherwise-sensible Delphi programmer enthusing about LiveCode which appears to be some species of Visual COBOL. Sometimes I wonder whether I'm on the right planet. I, for one, see absolutely nothing wrong with += etc. since it's an unambiguous idiom which came into use decades ago and is now almost universally understood. Things like ptr++ or Inc(ptr) are far more pernicious. -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues] ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
On Friday 29 March 2013 10:53:04 Jürgen Hestermann wrote: Am 2013-03-29 10:35, schrieb Sven Barth: We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad... But that's not the point here. The problem has nothing to do with backward compatibility. Just the opposite. If you incorporate each and every feature from any other language then you no longer have Pascal. The end would be that you can write whatever language you want, the compiler will understand it. This may look like a benefit but after all you cannot be sure to understand source code written for this compiler anymore. It would require learning all the many languages that exist within Object Pascal. To program nowadays it already requires a lot of other things to learn (different OSs and interfaces). I see no need to add even more to that by adding features over and over again. Pascal was successful because it was easy and clear. Now it becomes complex and cluttered. Agreed. It is propably time now to make an new attempt for an open source Pascal-like compiler which is not forced to follow Delphi and can learn from the pros and cons of Free Pascal without the ballast of backwards compatibility from 20 years. Martin ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
Am 29.03.2013 11:27, schrieb Martin Schreiber: On Friday 29 March 2013 10:53:04 Jürgen Hestermann wrote: Am 2013-03-29 10:35, schrieb Sven Barth: We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad... But that's not the point here. The problem has nothing to do with backward compatibility. Just the opposite. If you incorporate each and every feature from any other language then you no longer have Pascal. The end would be that you can write whatever language you want, the compiler will understand it. This may look like a benefit but after all you cannot be sure to understand source code written for this compiler anymore. It would require learning all the many languages that exist within Object Pascal. To program nowadays it already requires a lot of other things to learn (different OSs and interfaces). I see no need to add even more to that by adding features over and over again. Pascal was successful because it was easy and clear. Now it becomes complex and cluttered. Agreed. It is propably time now to make an new attempt for an open source Pascal-like compiler which is not forced to follow Delphi and can learn from the pros and cons of Free Pascal without the ballast of backwards compatibility from 20 years. Indeed. First, we should get rid of this sting type mess and concentrate on good utf-8 support. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
On 29 Mar 2013, at 10:53, Jürgen Hestermann wrote: Am 2013-03-29 10:35, schrieb Sven Barth: We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad... But that's not the point here. The problem has nothing to do with backward compatibility. It's about backward compatibility with existing FPC-compilable code that makes use of this feature, and that would no longer be compilable by FPC if the feature were removed. Jonas___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
Am 29.03.2013 10:53 schrieb Jürgen Hestermann juergen.hesterm...@gmx.de: Am 2013-03-29 10:35, schrieb Sven Barth: We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad... But that's not the point here. The problem has nothing to do with backward compatibility. I am talking about the C operators here as the compiler supports them. As Florian wrote they were contributed in '96, so they are part of FPC's heritage and thus they are object to the same backwards compatibility protection as any other feature we currently support (bugs in those features excluded). Also I've answered to a threat to this protection by leledumbo. And I agree with you that this proposal of function based operators is un-Pascal-ish and thus I won't support them either. Regards, Sven ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
Am 29.03.2013 11:21 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd markmll.fpc-pas...@telemetry.co.uk: I, for one, see absolutely nothing wrong with += etc. since it's an unambiguous idiom which came into use decades ago and is now almost universally understood. Things like ptr++ or Inc(ptr) are far more pernicious. The normal C-like operators as we currently support them aren't completely bad (I use them myself here and there), but suggestions like min= are too much. Regards, Sven ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said: We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad... What is it about Pascal programmers and their assumption that verbosity is a prerequisite to clarity? That's an old discussion. Here is the canned answer: It's simply how the latin alphabet works, a native to the latin alphabet is trained to read words that consist out of multiple tokens from a limited set. Not to interpret a sequence of tokens from a large set. It might be different for Chinese :-) However while some writing systems (like many Eastern Asian languages) are more ideogrammic, it might be dangerous to expand this to the domain of programming languages, where very small changes can have great consequences. (natural languages have a certain mount of redundancy to avoid problems). Of course it is all reletive. I don't particularly mean to change := to becomes or so :-) I, for one, see absolutely nothing wrong with += etc. since it's an unambiguous idiom which came into use decades ago and is now almost universally understood. Universal in the curly braces world. We are not part of that family. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
I, for one, see absolutely nothing wrong with += etc. since it's an unambiguous idiom which came into use decades ago and is now almost universally understood. I see one: compatibility with other compilers, though I exclusively use FPC, some people in groups I'm involved in asks general Pascal/Delphi questions, which I can't answer with this C-ish feature. -- View this message in context: http://free-pascal-general.1045716.n5.nabble.com/Feature-proposal-function-based-assignment-operators-tp5713868p5713910.html Sent from the Free Pascal - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
leledumbo wrote: I, for one, see absolutely nothing wrong with += etc. since it's an unambiguous idiom which came into use decades ago and is now almost universally understood. I see one: compatibility with other compilers, though I exclusively use FPC, some people in groups I'm involved in asks general Pascal/Delphi questions, which I can't answer with this C-ish feature. I must emphasise that my nothing wrong applied to += as a general language feature, not to its use where portability was concerned. But I must also add that I got this from an accomplished Delphi user (and occasional journalist) this morning: PS: I like the idea of += in Pascal. How far do they take it? Is there a /=, *=, mod=, or=, xor=? -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues] ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Jürgen Hestermann juergen.hesterm...@gmx.de wrote: Am 2013-03-29 10:35, schrieb Sven Barth: We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad... But that's not the point here. The problem has nothing to do with backward compatibility. Just the opposite. If you incorporate each and every feature from any other language then you no longer have Pascal. The end would be that you can write whatever language you want, the compiler will understand it. This may look like a benefit but after all you cannot be sure to understand source code written for this compiler anymore. It would require learning all the many languages that exist within Object Pascal. To program nowadays it already requires a lot of other things to learn (different OSs and interfaces). I see no need to add even more to that by adding features over and over again. Pascal was successful because it was easy and clear. Now it becomes complex and cluttered. +1 Marcos Douglas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
Good point. So to be consistent, don't turn it on :-) NEVER turn it on for me :-) If only I'm the core dev, I would mark the C operator feature as deprecated and remove it in the next major version. -- View this message in context: http://free-pascal-general.1045716.n5.nabble.com/Feature-proposal-function-based-assignment-operators-tp5713868p5713890.html Sent from the Free Pascal - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: Feature proposal: function-based assignment operatorst
Same here. M On Mar 28, 2013, at 6:21 PM, leledumbo wrote: Good point. So to be consistent, don't turn it on :-) NEVER turn it on for me :-) If only I'm the core dev, I would mark the C operator feature as deprecated and remove it in the next major version. -- View this message in context: http://free-pascal-general.1045716.n5.nabble.com/Feature-proposal-function-based-assignment-operators-tp5713868p5713890.html Sent from the Free Pascal - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
