03.03.2013 2:22, Sven Barth пишет:
On 02.03.2013 20:55, Sven Barth wrote:
Also there are open questions which require brainstorm:
1. Does Pascal needs other implementation of closures which is different
from anonymous methods implementation?
I would say no. After all the method implementation
On 03/05/2013 08:52 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Good thing is, most of these are kept in the 'delphi' compiler mode.
The 'objfpc' mode normally get some more pascal love.
+1
AFAIK there is an Apple specific Objective Pascal mode, as well. I think
it's really nice to have multiple compilers
On 03/06/2013 01:54 AM, Frank Church wrote:
I have observed a lot of Delphi developers who have written code that
needs or depends on the features like anonymous methods, generics,
RTTI
or Strings :-[
give up porting to FPC because it proved too difficult, but then
it turns out those libraries
Am 06.03.2013 11:57, schrieb Michael Schnell:
On 03/05/2013 08:52 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Good thing is, most of these are kept in the 'delphi' compiler mode.
The 'objfpc' mode normally get some more pascal love.
+1
AFAIK there is an Apple specific Objective Pascal mode, as well. I
On 03/06/2013 01:45 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
There is a mode that's compatible to Mac Pascal, but the Objective
Pascal is independant of the mode, but is triggered by a modeswitch
(as it was specially developed by the FPC and the Mac Pascal
communities).
Would it not be nice and more
Am 06.03.2013 14:35, schrieb Michael Schnell:
On 03/06/2013 01:45 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
There is a mode that's compatible to Mac Pascal, but the Objective
Pascal is independant of the mode, but is triggered by a modeswitch
(as it was specially developed by the FPC and the Mac Pascal
On 2013-03-05 13:02, Sven Barth wrote:
Two words: backwards compatibility.
To Turbo Pascal yes (ie: tp mode), but surely not ObjFPC?
Regards,
- Graeme -
--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/
On 03/06/2013 02:37 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
What exactly do you mean?
we already have:
{$MODE FPC}
{$MODE OBTP}
{$MODE DELPHI}
{$MODE OBJFPC}
{$MODE OBJMAC}
if {$MODE OBJMAC} not already is for objective Pascal there could be
something like
{$MODE OBJECTIVE}
-Michael
Am 06.03.2013 15:19, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
On 2013-03-05 13:02, Sven Barth wrote:
Two words: backwards compatibility.
To Turbo Pascal yes (ie: tp mode), but surely not ObjFPC?
You must not forget that mode ObjFPC isn't the youngest one either. If
we'd freshly design that mode I'd agree
{$MODE SUBJECTIVE} is more appropriate in this discussion.
But i am by -first - education a political scientist.
On 6-3-2013 15:44, Michael Schnell wrote:
On 03/06/2013 02:37 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
What exactly do you mean?
we already have:
{$MODE FPC}
{$MODE OBTP}
{$MODE DELPHI}
{$MODE
{$MODE MINE} would suit as well :-)
2013/3/6 Thaddy tha...@thaddy.com
{$MODE SUBJECTIVE} is more appropriate in this discussion.
But i am by -first - education a political scientist.
On 6-3-2013 15:44, Michael Schnell wrote:
On 03/06/2013 02:37 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
What exactly do
05.03.13, 15:57, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
With such an attitude you should remove objfpc (and perhaps all
non-delphi modes) alltogether, and rename Free Pascal to Free Delphi.
The situation with FPC and Delphi is very like to what had happened with
browsers. Every had it own vision of CSS,
Am 05.03.2013 07:56, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
05.03.13, 14:10, Sven Barth wrote:
ObjFPC mode is not compatible with mode Delphi, because of conscious
decisions. Think for example about the @ for procedure variable
assignments here or the use of symbolic operator names for overload
declarations,
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Paul Ishenin wrote:
05.03.13, 15:57, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
With such an attitude you should remove objfpc (and perhaps all
non-delphi modes) alltogether, and rename Free Pascal to Free Delphi.
The situation with FPC and Delphi is very like to what had happened with
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 05.03.2013 07:56, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
05.03.13, 14:10, Sven Barth wrote:
ObjFPC mode is not compatible with mode Delphi, because of conscious
decisions. Think for example about the @ for procedure variable
assignments here or the use of symbolic
05.03.13, 16:30, Sven Barth wrote:
Just to say one thing clear: I will NOT drop FPC's generic
implementation and I'll revert every commit that tries to do so, because
Sven, relax - FPC is not your own project and not mine. We can't simple
commit or revert what we want.
not only do we have
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Paul Ishenin wrote:
05.03.13, 16:30, Sven Barth wrote:
Just to say one thing clear: I will NOT drop FPC's generic
implementation and I'll revert every commit that tries to do so, because
Sven, relax - FPC is not your own project and not mine. We can't simple
commit or
Am 05.03.2013 09:59, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
Just to say one thing clear: I will NOT drop FPC's generic
implementation and I'll revert every commit that tries to do so, because
Sven, relax - FPC is not your own project and not mine. We can't
simple commit or revert what we want.
I'm sorry
On 2013-03-04 20:33, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
You can simulate this in FPC as well as TP by using a local typed
constant. e.g.
function GetValue: integer;
const value: integer = 0;
begin
Inc(value);
Result:= value;
end;
I've seen this before, and always been baffled by this.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 2013-03-04 20:33, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
You can simulate this in FPC as well as TP by using a local typed
constant. e.g.
function GetValue: integer;
const value: integer = 0;
begin
Inc(value);
Result:= value;
end;
I've seen this
Am 05.03.2013 10:20, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
On 2013-03-04 20:33, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
You can simulate this in FPC as well as TP by using a local typed
constant. e.g.
function GetValue: integer;
const value: integer = 0;
begin
Inc(value);
Result:= value;
end;
I've seen this
05.03.13, 17:14, Sven Barth wrote:
Just for your information: I will implement generic methods will full
requirement for generic and specialize in mode ObjFPC (and no, you
can't change my opinion on that).
Yes, I didn't expect my mails will suddenly change your opinion. And
even if they
Am 05.03.2013 10:41, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
05.03.13, 17:14, Sven Barth wrote:
Just for your information: I will implement generic methods will full
requirement for generic and specialize in mode ObjFPC (and no, you
can't change my opinion on that).
Yes, I didn't expect my mails will suddenly
On 2013-03-05 09:12, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
You may think that Delphi is the best thing since sliced bread,
but not everyone thinks so.
There are several people on the list that do not like what Delphi is doing to
the pascal language.
+1000
I think Embarcadero is butchering the Object
05.03.13, 17:12, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Of course we can, if you violate a basic rule: do not undo other peoples
work.
Can you imagine me or anybody other in FPC team who do so without total
agreement?
It does not split. It offers people the choice.
Again we see one thing from
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Paul Ishenin wrote:
Think about component and applications developers who need to care about FPC
and Delphi. Less incompatibilities FPC will have more 3rd party components
and applications it will get.
For this, mode delphi exists.
I remember author of Total
Am 05.03.2013 10:53, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
On 2013-03-05 09:12, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
You may think that Delphi is the best thing since sliced bread,
but not everyone thinks so.
There are several people on the list that do not like what Delphi is doing to
the pascal language.
+1000
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Paul Ishenin wrote:
05.03.13, 17:12, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Of course we can, if you violate a basic rule: do not undo other peoples
work.
Can you imagine me or anybody other in FPC team who do so without total
agreement?
I hope not :)
It does not split. It
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 10:12:04AM +0100, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
You may think that Delphi is the best thing since sliced bread,
but not everyone thinks so.
And with the attitude of, e.g. Boian, we see that it's simply too hard
to please hard-core delphi fanboys. They're all take and no
05.03.13, 17:55, Sven Barth wrote:
@Paul: see? :)
I see you, Graeme, Michael and probably some more 5-6 developers.
Best regards,
Paul Ishenin
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
Paul Ishenin wrote:
I remember author of Total Commander who had failed to port his project
to FPC + Laz because of many incompatilities in both projects.
IMHO, you are not right. the 64-bit version seems to be written in
FPC/Lazarus:
The string FPC 2.5.1 [2011/12/03] for x86_64 - Win64
Am 05.03.2013 11:05, schrieb Henry Vermaak:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 10:12:04AM +0100, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
You may think that Delphi is the best thing since sliced bread,
but not everyone thinks so.
And with the attitude of, e.g. Boian, we see that it's simply too hard
to please
In our previous episode, Sven Barth said:
when Delphi announced them they had much more (you know of course).
That was more a prototype of generics. But inspite of that we did not
drop our own implementation.
Just to say one thing clear: I will NOT drop FPC's generic
implementation and
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Paul Ishenin paul.ishe...@gmail.com wrote:
05.03.13, 17:55, Sven Barth wrote:
I see you, Graeme, Michael and probably some more 5-6 developers.
The level of Delphi compatibility vs. syntax quality is, as always in
engineering,
a matter of compromise and
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
Just to say one thing clear: I will NOT drop FPC's generic
implementation and I'll revert every commit that tries to do so, because
not only do we have to keep backwards compatibility, but the Delphi
syntax is a
In our previous episode, Alexander Klenin said:
not only do we have to keep backwards compatibility, but the Delphi
syntax is a nightmare to parse.
But you need to anyway because of mode delphi, so what is the point?
It is hard to parse for humans as well as for the compiler.
That's a
Am 05.03.2013 10:25, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
I've seen this before, and always been baffled by this. How can you
increment a constant? If you can, it is then a variable, no?
A leftover from the TP days. A typed constant acts as an initialized
variable.
You can disable this construct
Am 05.03.2013 11:10, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
@Paul: see? :)
I see you, Graeme, Michael and probably some more 5-6 developers.
That is the problem with mailing lists. Not everybody sends a mail, just
saying +1 from me too. And so it could be probably some more 500-600
developers.
And btw:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Paul Ishenin paul.ishe...@gmail.com wrote:
05.03.13, 17:55, Sven Barth wrote:
@Paul: see? :)
I see you, Graeme, Michael and probably some more 5-6 developers.
So now we have 7! ;-)
I want to keep the language sane too.
Regards,
Marcos Douglas
Am 05.03.2013 12:44, schrieb Michael Fuchs:
Am 05.03.2013 10:25, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
I've seen this before, and always been baffled by this. How can you
increment a constant? If you can, it is then a variable, no?
A leftover from the TP days. A typed constant acts as an initialized
Am 05.03.2013 12:29, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
This is why I propose the following plan:
1) Implement Delphi-like anonymous functions syntax, without closures
2) Implement Delphi-like by-reference closures
3) Implement ObjFPC-specific named closures with explicit by-value/by
reference options
Am 05.03.2013 12:24, schrieb Marco van de Voort:
In our previous episode, Sven Barth said:
when Delphi announced them they had much more (you know of course).
That was more a prototype of generics. But inspite of that we did not
drop our own implementation.
Just to say one thing clear: I will
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
SomeVar := SomeFuncSomething - SomeTypeSomething.SomeMethod *
SomeOtherTypeSomething.SomeMethodSomething;
=== example end ===
while this will be much easier to implement:
=== example begin ===
SomeVar :=
Am 05.03.2013 14:23, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
SomeVar := SomeFuncSomething - SomeTypeSomething.SomeMethod *
SomeOtherTypeSomething.SomeMethodSomething;
=== example end ===
while this will be much easier to
Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com hat am 5. März 2013 um 14:27
geschrieben:
[...]
Please note that I wouldn't have choosen round brackets either
(potential conflicts with type casting)
?
Can you give an example?
Mattias
___
fpc-devel maillist
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't know why the one who first implemented them chose them, but now the
reason is backwards compatibility.
Please note that I wouldn't have choosen round brackets either (potential
conflicts with type casting)
Am 05.03.2013 14:50, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't know why the one who first implemented them chose them, but now the
reason is backwards compatibility.
Please note that I wouldn't have choosen round brackets
Am 05.03.2013 14:41, schrieb Mattias Gaertner:
Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com hat am 5. März 2013 um 14:27
geschrieben:
[...]
Please note that I wouldn't have choosen round brackets either
(potential conflicts with type casting)
?
Can you give an example?
Forget what I wrote... As I've
05.03.13, 21:00, Marcos Douglas пишет:
So now we have 7! ;-)
I want to keep the language sane too.
I wrote not about sane/insane. Delphi adds features to pascal the way
they want - this is reality. We can't do anything with this. If they add
a feature not the sane way we can't undo their
Am 05.03.2013 11:10, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
05.03.13, 17:55, Sven Barth wrote:
@Paul: see? :)
I see you, Graeme, Michael and probably some more 5-6 developers.
Even if those are the only ones, from the beginning, FPC tried to
support all niches. And if someone maintaines a certain niche,
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Paul Ishenin paul.ishe...@gmail.com wrote:
05.03.13, 21:00, Marcos Douglas пишет:
So now we have 7! ;-)
I want to keep the language sane too.
I wrote not about sane/insane. Delphi adds features to pascal the way they
want - this is reality. We can't do
On 3/4/2013 15:33, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
On 04/03/13 6:34, waldo kitty wrote:
i'm trying to understand what you mean by
Pascal don't allows to create static variables inside function
like in c-like languages.
i've done something that i think is what you speak of but it was in
Borland's
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Delphi anonymous methods
And with the attitude of, e.g. Boian, we see that it's simply too hard
to please hard-core delphi fanboys. They're all take and no give.
I look forward to the day when the fpc developers will realise that
playing eternal catch-up is never going to work
: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 3:30 AM
To: FPC developers' list
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Delphi anonymous methods
It is hard to parse for humans as well as for the compiler.
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org
On 2013-03-05 15:24, Marcos Douglas wrote:
Why follow the Delphi even knowing that is the wrong way to implement
something?
Because like the FPC team have said a million times to me because
they follow Delphi blindly, and WILL do everything to stay delphi
compatible.
Good thing is, most
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:56:21AM -0800, Boian Mitov wrote:
Hi Henry,
Interesting that you consider me a Delphi fanboy :-D .
I don't like it much, but I surely love the anonymous methods :-D .
I love the C++11 implementation of anonymous methods more however,
but I hate the lack of
---
Mitov Software
www.mitov.com
---
-Original Message-
From: Henry Vermaak
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:20 PM
To: FPC developers' list
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Delphi anonymous methods
You sure have a lot of smiley faces
I have observed a lot of Delphi developers who have written code that
needs or depends on the features like anonymous methods, generics,
RTTI give up porting to FPC because it proved too difficult, but then
it turns out those libraries could greatly enhance FPC usage.
So I think this bullet must
Am 04.03.2013 01:15, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
[...]
It was clearly stated in the past that FPC will not support the C/C++
language feature of declaration a variable in-line inside code blocks,
but only in var sections.
Example of not allowed code:
for i: integer = 0 to 10 do
begin
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
I want to implement support of Delphi anonymous methods for fpc.
Just curious... why must such a feature be allowed in Object Pascal?
In Delphi, synchronization primitives like queue() and synchronize() have
been adapted to work with them,
In our previous episode, Boian Mitov said:
Or even more drastic example like this one:
Exit( AAttrItem.GetInstance().ComponentEditor.Create( Component,
Designer ));
end;
Try to write this without anonymous methods ;-) :-D .
Am I the only one who is reminded of Turbo Vision
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 2 lines of code
Just my dropping method names? I doubt that.
On 2013-03-04 03:59, Alexander Klenin wrote:
Because computer science is advancing, and there is a limit after which
programming language can not ignore those advancements and stay relevant.
Sure, I understand that. I just haven't seen an example that explains
why it is needed. Kind of why I
On 2013-03-04 09:24, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In Delphi, synchronization primitives like queue() and synchronize() have
been adapted to work with them, so they are actually more used than some
other new features.
Sure, just like Delphi implemented Advanced Records, when the Object
type
On 2013-03-04 04:54, Boian Mitov wrote:
In this case, not only you save declaration, you save the need to write a
whole new class just for the task.
All my code live in classes already, so I would simply have benefited by
having a properly defined method. Then pass the method pointer to the
On 03/04/2013 11:17 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Was advanced records really needed, NO.
As discussed in another thread:
It does make sense to allow for a kind of class that does not need to
reside on the heap and, (residing on the stack or global space) does not
need instantiation to gain
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
In Delphi, synchronization primitives like queue() and synchronize() have
been adapted to work with them, so they are actually more used than some
other new features.
Sure, just like Delphi implemented Advanced Records, when the Object
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys
gra...@geldenhuys.co.ukwrote:
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
On 2013-03-04 10:27, Michael Schnell wrote:
It does make sense to allow for a kind of class that does not need to
reside on the heap and, (residing on the stack or global space)
And that is exactly what the Object type [already] does... and was
introduced into the language in Turbo Pascal
On 03/04/2013 11:50 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
I still use the Object type to this day for performance or ease of use.
AFAIK, some of my colleagues do same.
For me the triple choice of a class, record and object notation
for a type defining a combination of data and associated functions is
On 04/03/2013 04:54, Boian Mitov wrote:
Here is example:
Parallel execution with selection of executor:
for i := 0 to AMaxScaleIndex - 1 do
begin
APerIterationLocations.Add( TRTDynamicListTVLImageRect.Create() );
AExecutionTask.Add( AExecutor.Execute(
procedure()
begin
On 04/03/2013 05:00, Boian Mitov wrote:
One thing for sure, I probably will very much never need to declare
TThread inherited classes. I can use a single anonymous method for
that, thanks to the ability of the anonymous method to capture local
and member variables.
This is something not doable
On 04/03/2013 05:57, Alexander Klenin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Martin laza...@mfriebe.de wrote:
Closures, do not need to be written/declared in the middle of other code
(in-line)
Strictly speaking, they do not. However, if the closures are required
to be named,
their expressive
On 04/03/2013 06:06, Boian Mitov wrote:
It may be a good idea to analyze the current Delphi implementation.
In essence the anonymous method expands to a class and interface.
The interface Execute method has the parameters of the anonymous
function. and the corresponding interface has the
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Martin laza...@mfriebe.de wrote:
On 04/03/2013 06:06, Boian Mitov wrote:
It may be a good idea to analyze the current Delphi implementation.
In essence the anonymous method expands to a class and interface.
The interface Execute method has the parameters of
On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:17:53 +
Martin laza...@mfriebe.de wrote:
On 04/03/2013 04:54, Boian Mitov wrote:
Here is example:
Parallel execution with selection of executor:
for i := 0 to AMaxScaleIndex - 1 do
begin
APerIterationLocations.Add( TRTDynamicListTVLImageRect.Create() );
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:17:53 +
Martin laza...@mfriebe.de wrote:
On 04/03/2013 04:54, Boian Mitov wrote:
Here is example:
Parallel execution with selection of executor:
for i := 0 to AMaxScaleIndex - 1 do
begin
APerIterationLocations.Add(
Am 04.03.2013 13:23, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:17:53 +
Martin laza...@mfriebe.de wrote:
On 04/03/2013 04:54, Boian Mitov wrote:
Here is example:
Parallel execution with selection of executor:
for i := 0 to
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 04.03.2013 13:23, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 11:17:53 +
Martin laza...@mfriebe.de wrote:
On 04/03/2013 04:54, Boian Mitov wrote:
Here is example:
Parallel execution with
On 04/03/2013 12:51, Sven Barth wrote:
If you guys would read what I wrote in one of my first answers to
Vasiliy in this thread than you would know that I want him to
implement this possiblity as well... but after all, who reads the
mails of some strange computer science student who just
Am 04.03.2013 01:15, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
On 2013-03-02 19:03, vrt277 wrote:
I want to implement support of Delphi anonymous methods for fpc.
Just curious... why must such a feature be allowed in Object Pascal?
Referring to the recent butchering of the Object Pascal language
thread we
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Martin laza...@mfriebe.de wrote:
Nevertheless, I agree what the implementation plan can be detailed even
further:
1) Anonymous procedures *without* closures -- basically, just another
syntax for nested procedures.
That might be interested for mode Delphi
No,
On 2013-03-04 11:17, Martin wrote:
I added:
- the name Bar
- Used is at reference
- the keyword closure
The above code would then create the exact same closure, as your code
does. And it does not need an anonymous method.
+1
Much better solution, an in my opinion, much easier to
On 2013-03-04 13:05, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
And the first to use anonymous functions in FPC distributed code,
I will personally make him eat his keyboard. Without pepper and salt.
Thank you!! :)
Regards,
- Graeme -
--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
Thanks for taking the time with your detailed explanation.
Regards,
G.
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Alexander Klenin wrote:
4) With both lambda and as syntax:
ATree.VisitPreorder(lambda TVisitor as X + 5);
Now, my argument is that (2) does indeed have only a marginal
advantage over (1),
but (4) is powerful enough to really make functional-style programming
practically
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:28:07 +0100 (CET)
Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org wrote:
[...]
I play chess. The rules of chess have not evolved in a long time.
It doesn't make the game less popular or interesting to those that play it.
Actually, yes it does. ;)
I dare you to propose a new
On 04/03/2013 14:09, Alexander Klenin wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Martin laza...@mfriebe.de wrote:
Nevertheless, I agree what the implementation plan can be detailed even
further:
1) Anonymous procedures *without* closures -- basically, just another
syntax for nested procedures.
Am 04.03.2013 15:42, schrieb Martin:
but (4) is powerful enough to really make functional-style programming
practically
I can live with that. I find it odd so that as is used in the
reverse order compared to current use.
The use of as is based on an idea of mine. C# for example has = and
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
mich...@freepascal.org wrote:
Pascal is declarative,
Please... no, Pascal is not declarative, and we have establised that
fact just about two weeks ago.
not functional.
Trying to import elements from the second into the first is misguided.
On 04/03/2013 14:49, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 04.03.2013 15:42, schrieb Martin:
but (4) is powerful enough to really make functional-style programming
practically
I can live with that. I find it odd so that as is used in the
reverse order compared to current use.
The use of as is based on
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
The use of as is based on an idea of mine. C# for example has = and
Oxygene has - which I didn't consider much Pascal like. Also the compiler
needs to know the type of the lambda so it can correctly typecheck its code
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Martin laza...@mfriebe.de wrote:
First: Stressing out: I don't like it. But if we must have one, the lambda
approach is the best one yet.
Reason: At least the type is declared at a pascal-like location.
I certainly agree that it is subjective in the sense that
Am 04.03.2013 16:13, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
The use of as is based on an idea of mine. C# for example has = and
Oxygene has - which I didn't consider much Pascal like. Also the compiler
needs to know the type of
On 04/03/2013 16:05, Alexander Klenin wrote:
Anonymous functions (with good syntax, of course) fall in this category.
The world recognized that fact -- rather slowly, to be sure, but
remember that whiles and fors
also took decades to be accepted as standard constructs.
I am not going to ask for
On 04/03/2013 16:05, Alexander Klenin wrote:
Both lambda and as keywords are quite debatable, of course.
IMHO the existing procedure/function keywords should be kept. But with
the requirement of using a defined type
Foo( function as TVisitor; Result := x+5 end; );
or
Foo( function as
---
Mitov Software
www.mitov.com
---
-Original Message-
From: Martin
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 3:35 AM
To: FPC developers' list
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Delphi anonymous methods
On 04/03/2013 06:06
---
Mitov Software
www.mitov.com
---
-Original Message-
From: Michael Van Canneyt
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:23 AM
To: FPC developers' list
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Delphi anonymous
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Boian Mitov wrote:
Ye, by writing 20 times more code for the same.
What here I can do with 3 lines, otherwise needs declaration of a new class,
new interface and new instance of the class.
So what I can do here i 15 seconds would take me 1 hour to do traditionally.
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Boian Mitov wrote:
Thank you Michael,
This is a good advise :-) .
I guess I really should stop using Delphi in the future :-) .
I am surely not using FPC and staying with Delphi for now, but I appreciate
your advise.
Having less people use the language is the way to go
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
