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
{$MODE MINE} would suit as well :-)
2013/3/6 Thaddy
> {$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 me
{$MODE SUBJECTIVE} is more appropriate in this discussion.
But i am by -first - education a political scientist.
On 6-3-2013 15:44, Michael Schnell wrote:
On 03/06/2013 02:37 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
What exactly do you mean?
we already have:
{$MODE FPC}
{$MODE OBTP}
{$MODE DELPHI}
{$MODE OBJFP
Am 06.03.2013 15:19, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
On 2013-03-05 13:02, Sven Barth wrote:
Two words: backwards compatibility.
To Turbo Pascal yes (ie: tp mode), but surely not ObjFPC?
You must not forget that mode ObjFPC isn't the youngest one either. If
we'd freshly design that mode I'd agree wi
On 03/06/2013 02:37 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
What exactly do you mean?
we already have:
{$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
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/
_
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
communitie
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 straightfor
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
think
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
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 in
Am 05.03.2013 14:02, schrieb Sven Barth:
You can disable this construct with:
http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/prog/progsu42.html
This should be the default in ObjFpc mode.
Two words: backwards compatibility.
For every version of fpc exists an user changes list, containing items
which b
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 b
oian Mitov
---
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
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 ex
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,
: 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.freepasca
#x27; list
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
pl
---
Mitov Software
www.mitov.com
---
-Original Message-
From: Michael Van Canneyt
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 11:51 PM
To: FPC developers' list
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Delphi anonymous methods
A
On 3/5/2013 04:20, 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 befo
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
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Paul Ishenin 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 anything with th
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, th
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 fea
On 03/05/2013 05:34 AM, waldo kitty wrote:
It is as I thought about closures before. But this is useless without
capturing
of variables by value. During creation of anonymous method you *can
not bind any
values* to it. Anonymous method have only references to captured
variables.
Pascal don't al
Am 05.03.2013 14:41, schrieb Mattias Gaertner:
Sven Barth 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 written in my mail to Alexa
Am 05.03.2013 14:50, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Sven Barth 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 w
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Sven Barth 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)
Is not "specialize" ke
Sven Barth 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 - fpc-devel@lists.freepa
Am 05.03.2013 14:23, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Sven Barth wrote:
SomeVar := SomeFunc - SomeType.SomeMethod *
SomeOtherType.SomeMethod;
=== example end ===
while this will be much easier to implement:
=== example begin ===
SomeVar := specialize SomeFunc - spe
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Sven Barth wrote:
>
> SomeVar := SomeFunc - SomeType.SomeMethod *
> SomeOtherType.SomeMethod;
>
> === example end ===
>
> while this will be much easier to implement:
>
> === example begin ===
>
> SomeVar := specialize SomeFunc - specialize
> SomeType.SomeMethod *
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 N
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
4)
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
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Paul Ishenin 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 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
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 wit
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.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Marco van de Voort 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 nightmare to pa
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Paul Ishenin 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 cost/benefit analysis.
For
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
> implementati
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 hard-core
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"
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
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc
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
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 off
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:
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 Commander
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 differ
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 Obj
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 sudde
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 w
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 be
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 be
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 b
Am 05.03.2013 10:12, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
There are several people on the list that do not like what Delphi is
doing to
the pascal language. The way Embarcadero treats the Pascal Language I
am more and more going to this camp. More so with every release of
Delphi.
As this thread clearl
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 tha
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
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, 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
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
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,
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, J
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Paul Ishenin wrote:
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, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 05.03.2013 04:55 schrieb "Paul Ishenin" :
>
> 04.03.2013 18:29, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
>> I chose the latter. Compatibility. All the way. No compromise.
>>
>> Is it pure? No. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative? Yes.
>>
>> Current
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Boian Mitov wrote:
I have never attempted to use it in wine.
It is at current for Windows only, and is a prerelease.
A pity.
Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman
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, instead of words like Delphi did it. And gen
Am 05.03.2013 04:55 schrieb "Paul Ishenin" :
>
> 04.03.2013 18:29, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
>> I chose the latter. Compatibility. All the way. No compromise.
>>
>> Is it pure? No. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative?
Yes.
>>
>> Currently FPC is much dirtier than Delphi if only b
04.03.2013 18:29, Marco van de Voort wrote:
I chose the latter. Compatibility. All the way. No compromise.
Is it pure? No. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the alternative? Yes.
Currently FPC is much dirtier than Delphi if only because it has two
implementations for everything.
I'm total
On 04/03/2013 22:16, Sven Barth wrote:
> The above is NOT an anonymous function. It is a reference to a term.
> I am not voting for it, but IF it was done, then it should have its
own keyword.
>
> It would not allow for var, type or anything (and it will only work
for functions, not procedure
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 1:39 PM
To: FPC developers' list
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Delphi anonymous methods
home: >wine OpenWireIDE.exe
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
---
Mitov Software
www.mitov.com
---
From: Sven Barth
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 2:19 PM
To: fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Delphi anonymous methods
We'll implement features of Delphi anywa
www.mitov.com
---
From: Roberto P.
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 2:06 PM
To: FPC developers' list
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Delphi anonymous methods
FPC is really an exciting and always improving language/project, but IMHO if
you stretch out too much
Am 04.03.2013 23:06 schrieb "Roberto P." :
>
> FPC is really an exciting and always improving language/project, but IMHO
if you stretch out too much from the Pascal origin and "general frame",
then people will eventually get lost and abandone it.
We'll implement features of Delphi anyway for compa
Am 04.03.2013 22:41 schrieb "Martin" :
>
> On 04/03/2013 19:16, Alexander Klenin wrote:
>>>
>>> See above. The omission "of Result :=" is IMHO not desirable.
>>
>> Are you sure? Note that *any* useful single-statement function will
>> start exactly like this
>
> If a = x then Result := 4 else Resul
y! :-D
>
>
> With best regards,
> Boian Mitov
>
> --**-
> Mitov Software
> www.mitov.com
> --**-
> -Original Message- From: Michael Van Canneyt Sent: Monday, March
> 04, 2013 12:41 P
On 04/03/2013 19:16, Alexander Klenin wrote:
See above. The omission "of Result :=" is IMHO not desirable.
Are you sure? Note that *any* useful single-statement function will
start exactly like this
If a = x then Result := 4 else Result := 5;
Single statement, but starts different. And is use
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Boian Mitov wrote:
Correct :-) .
Now back to running it ;-) .
Cheers!
See what I am cooking next:
http://www.mitov.com/OpenWireIDE.zip
home: >wine OpenWireIDE.exe
p11-kit: couldn't load module:
/usr/lib/i386-linux-gnu/pkcs11/gnome-keyring-pkcs11.so:
/usr/lib/i386-linux
---
-Original Message-
From: Michael Van Canneyt
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 12:41 PM
To: FPC developers' list
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Delphi anonymous methods
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Boian Mitov wrote:
Do not get me wrong, I do not ask you to change your decision or your code
On 04/03/2013 19:16, Alexander Klenin wrote:
function NAME(PARAMS): RETURNTYPE as EXPRESSION
IMHO that is not a good idea. It adds an additional construct, that every
reader must know how to read. It does not add/save enough to be needed.
I agree, it is borderline, and needs to be additiona
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Boian Mitov wrote:
Then why do you think I am wasting my time writing all this?
I should be asking this to you :-)
I really want to support Lazarus, but that is not even remotely possible
today.
That says it all.
Delphi doesn't support these 'new features' that long
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 Turbo Pascal... at least TP6... i don't re
11:12 AM
To: FPC developers' list
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Delphi anonymous methods
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Boian Mitov wrote:
But I seriously doubt that this has to do with missing anonymous functions
in
a delphi-compatible form.
I also doubt that adding anonymous functions would make you c
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:34 AM, Martin wrote:
> 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 "while"s and "for"s
>> also took decades
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Boian Mitov wrote:
Hi Michael,
Thank you!
I actually have more experience in C++ than in Delphi. I have been using
Delphi only for ~15 years, where my active C++ experience dates back to 1990,
and I actively develop in C++ and C# on daily basis as well (All of our
pro
It is as I thought about closures before. But this is useless without capturing
of variables by value. During creation of anonymous method you *can not bind any
values* to it. Anonymous method have only references to captured variables.
Pascal don't allows to create static variables inside functio
Mitov
---
Mitov Software
www.mitov.com
---
-Original Message-
From: Michael Van Canneyt
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:11 AM
To: FPC developers' list
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Delphi anonymous methods
If y
--Original Message-
From: Michael Van Canneyt
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:19 AM
To: FPC developers' list
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Delphi anonymous methods
There is a course in witchcraft here in the neighbourhood,
shall I send you the details so you can inscribe ?
Sounds like
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Boian Mitov wrote:
Actually you are right indeed. I would spill a secret now. I have actually
been working on a new language for a while, although it indeed will not only
have anonymous methods, but will not have methods altogether, since it is a
non procedural and non fu
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Boian Mitov wrote:
I actually somewhat agree with that, except it is less readable since you
can't follow the code flow in place but have to scroll up to see what will
happen (in for each as example.)
If you do proper top-down programming, usually there is no need to go
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 methods
People who want that should not be using
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:03 AM
To: FPC developers' list
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Delphi anonymous methods
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Boian Mitov wrote:
This is not correct.
For anonymous functions you do not need to declare a new class.
Just name a local method.
That means move a line, and
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 :
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.
This
---
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 anon
---
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
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
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 "while"s and "for"s
also took decades to be accepted as standard constructs.
I am not going to ask
Am 04.03.2013 16:13, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Sven Barth 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
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Martin 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 some persons
do
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
