On 10/5/06, Bisma Jayadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For example:
If this is really the case that cause you demand var_args feature, then
obviously you have problem with your software design. I agree with Marco. :) I
wrote a program to solve a problem exactly like this without need of var_args
f
For example:
%d/%d/%d (dd/mm/)
Hello %s(Mr). %s (Van Der Voot),
Thank you for interesting in our %s(product).
%s (Marco) we are more then happy to help you and give you additional
information about %s (product).
You can either call us at the phone number of 1234567890 extension %d
(1)
> On 10/3/06, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree here, but as I said (I hope), you need some sort of compiler
> > > directive to enable such thing. By default it should accept only []. I
> > > agree with that. And as I said before, this is a petty thing only.
> >
> >
On 10/3/06, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/2/06, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The type of a is secure in the second part, and it is faster. Keep in mind
> > that more elaborate syntax increases the chance of copying/referencecount
> > changing etc etc.
On 10/2/06, Daniël Mantione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Op Mon, 2 Oct 2006, schreef ik:
> > Well, I think that this is also a functional thing.
> >
> > >
> > > * Syntactically, both methods can be safe.
> > > * Syntactically, the FPC/Delphi one is more powerfull.
> >
> > Well take a look at the
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > But the response is not correct.
> > For example, I do not like the fact in VB that I must use "," without
> > parameter if I "don't' want to use" this parameters.
>
> But probably there will be a reason. Some form of disambiguation that this
>
> On 10/2/06, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The type of a is secure in the second part, and it is faster. Keep in mind
> > that more elaborate syntax increases the chance of copying/referencecount
> > changing etc etc.
> >
> > E.g. the standard example is printf. There the firs
Op Mon, 2 Oct 2006, schreef ik:
> > Well, I think that this is also a functional thing.
> >
> > >
> > > * Syntactically, both methods can be safe.
> > > * Syntactically, the FPC/Delphi one is more powerfull.
> >
> > Well take a look at the way Java implement it:
> >
> > function varrags(
On 10/2/06, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/2/06, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 1. It's not a va_args.
> >
> > So? Other language, other syntax. We don't use {} either.
>
> Sure you do, {$include file.inc} {$H+} {Comment} We just don't use it
> as the C
> On 10/2/06, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > 1. It's not a va_args.
> >
> > So? Other language, other syntax. We don't use {} either.
>
> Sure you do, {$include file.inc} {$H+} {Comment} We just don't use it
> as the C syntax wishes ...
I hope it was obvious that I meant bloc
On 10/2/06, Daniël Mantione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Op Mon, 2 Oct 2006, schreef ik:
> > > 2. The usage of [].
> >
> > Same. Penalty for being safe. It is also required being able to mix non
> > array of const and normal parameters.
>
> What is the difference ? I mean, what is the difference
Op Mon, 2 Oct 2006, schreef ik:
> > > 2. The usage of [].
> >
> > Same. Penalty for being safe. It is also required being able to mix non
> > array of const and normal parameters.
>
> What is the difference ? I mean, what is the difference between
> fnc(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j);
> and
> fnc(a,[bcd
On 10/2/06, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/2/06, Dani?l Mantione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Syntactically you cannot. However, the array of const is just as powerfull
> > (actually more powerfull, since you can pass multiple arrays). We consider
> > adding a trick t
> On 10/2/06, Dani?l Mantione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Syntactically you cannot. However, the array of const is just as powerfull
> > (actually more powerfull, since you can pass multiple arrays). We consider
> > adding a trick to make it syntactically behave like writeln unnecessary.
>
Op Mon, 2 Oct 2006, schreef ik:
> > > > Now we have open array, that's a really cool thing, but I can't
> > > > understand why I can't have a feature such as the compiler voodoo
> > > > magic of the "write" procedure.
> > >
> > > Syntactically you cannot. However, the array of const is just as
>
On 10/2/06, Daniël Mantione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Op Mon, 2 Oct 2006, schreef ik:
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering why Pascal as a language (and FPC with it's extensions)
> does not support va_args (or var_args in the java language).
It does: array of const. If you declare a procedure cdecl it is
Op Mon, 2 Oct 2006, schreef ik:
> Hi,
>
> I'm wondering why Pascal as a language (and FPC with it's extensions)
> does not support va_args (or var_args in the java language).
It does: array of const. If you declare a procedure cdecl it is even
binary compatible with a C varargs.
> Now we hav
Hi,
I'm wondering why Pascal as a language (and FPC with it's extensions)
does not support va_args (or var_args in the java language).
Now we have open array, that's a really cool thing, but I can't
understand why I can't have a feature such as the compiler voodoo
magic of the "write" procedure.
18 matches
Mail list logo
