On 25.01.2013 19:59, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013, Alexander Klenin wrote:
Pascal needs more useful libraries.
It is important to note that default libraries ARE part of the language
You are wrong there.
Well, this is a matter of opinion of course, but note that your
Op Sat, 26 Jan 2013, schreef Alexander Klenin:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 5:12 AM, Daniël Mantione
daniel.manti...@freepascal.org wrote:
Consider these arguments:
1) Even for simple arrays, depending on array element type,
and optimizer implementation, for-in can be more efficient since it
can
On 25.01.2013 20:24, Alexander Klenin wrote:
MyDataSet.First;
while not MyDataset.Eof do begin
// ...
MyDataSet.Next;
end;
// on a sidenote: what about a TDataSet enumerator? :)
It is not clear what should loop variable contain:
for v in MyDataSet do ... -- what is v?
Right... forget
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Florian Klämpfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote:
Am 25.01.2013 18:17, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
Using indicies is against all principles of iterators.
I am not sure what princilpes you are talking about,
The theory of iterators.
You mean Alexander Stepanov's
Sven Barth wrote:
Languages evolve. Natural languages as well as programming languages. We
might not agree with every change (e.g. in German there has been
established the nasty habit of saying that makes sense (das macht
Sinn) while the correct equivalent would be that has sense (das hat
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
What is concrete code? The code I provided only missed loop bodies.
I can provide that too, but I do not think it will add anything to the
discussion.
I believe he wants to have real world examples (of other
Am 25.01.2013 21:18, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com
wrote:
What is concrete code? The code I provided only missed loop bodies.
I can provide that too, but I do not think it will add anything to the
discussion.
I believe he
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd
markmll.fpc-de...@telemetry.co.uk wrote:
However, I'd suggest that there are two possible category of extension:
those that implement a clearly-delimited first-class object with interesting
properties, and those that don't.
Something like a
On 25.01.2013 21:10, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Something like
for a in a index i do
falls squarely into the latter category: it's messy to parse, worse to
read, and is completely unlike any existing language idioms.
I definitely have to disagree here (while still not having an opinion
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Florian Klämpfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote:
Where? Concrete code of a serious language! Not some oh, yes, this
language has it and that as well
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Florian Klämpfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote:
No. I want to see a language which
Am 25.01.2013 22:44, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Florian Klämpfl flor...@freepascal.org
wrote:
Where? Concrete code of a serious language! Not some oh, yes, this
language has it and that as well
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Florian Klämpfl
On 1/25/2013 13:59, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013, Alexander Klenin wrote:
I certainly agree that Pascal has some advantages -- and they often
outweigh disadvantages.
Otherwise, I would be in Python's mailing list now, arguing to add
some of the Pascal's features :)
However,
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Florian Klämpfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote:
Maybe I wouldn't have to ask if there would be a clear proposal what
shall be implemented, what are alternatives, what do other languages,
why is a so strange approach chosen etc.
I agree that the quality of initial
Sven Barth wrote:
On 25.01.2013 21:10, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Something like
for a in a index i do
falls squarely into the latter category: it's messy to parse, worse to
read, and is completely unlike any existing language idioms.
I definitely have to disagree here (while still not
On 25.01.2013 22:44, Alexander Klenin wrote:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 5:30 AM, Florian Klämpfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote:
Where? Concrete code of a serious language! Not some oh, yes, this
language has it and that as well
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Florian Klämpfl
On 25.01.2013 23:20, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Sven Barth wrote:
On 25.01.2013 21:10, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Something like
for a in a index i do
falls squarely into the latter category: it's messy to parse, worse to
read, and is completely unlike any existing language idioms.
I
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
After implementing support for Delphi style generics I came to the
conclusion that I would have preferred the following syntax:
type
TFPGListLongInt = specialize TFPGList as (Integer);
or
type
In our previous episode, Alexander Klenin said:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com
wrote:
TFPGListLongInt = specialize TFPGList with (Integer);
Whatever the particular syntax, I do agree that the decision to use
angular brackets
was unnecessarily
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 5:17 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
One could also do an alternative (though currently not with arrays, but with
type helper support even that would be possible...):
Yes, this is certainly the most interesting alternative. Actually,
anonymous
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
Whatever the particular syntax, I do agree that the decision to use
angular brackets
was unnecessarily copied from C++ -- round ones (or, at least, square
ones) would be much better.
Delphi got its generics from .NET.
26.01.13, 2:32, Michael Van Canneyt пишет:
Pascal is an explicitly declarative language. Anonymous functions go
100% against this. It is the readability horror I associate with
Javascript.
I wonder where you were when Operators feature has been added to pascal?
Or generics?
I think now
26.01.13, 4:47, Sven Barth пишет:
I definitely have to disagree here (while still not having an opinion on
the topic for-in-index itself): once you've worked on Delphi style
generics you know what messy parsing is... and I already get nightmares
thinking about what I still need to add for
Alexander Klenin schrieb:
2) Indeed, introducing tuples to Pascal might be an alternative
solution. Below is a proposal:
2.1) Tuple definition. Tuple is an anonymous list of values, possibly
of different types.
OPL: array of Variant.
Also: Open Array.
Where both are slow and clumsy to use,
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:45 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
mich...@freepascal.org wrote:
Enumerators are not iterators.
Eh... actually, they are? Why do you think otherwise?
If you want a full-fledged iterator, you should use classes.
Enumerators *are* classes, except for built-in ones.
The for
Den 23-01-2013 00:54, vrt277 skrev:
Hi FPC team,
There is good proposed extension of for-in loop on fpc wiki: get
enumerator Position if available
http://wiki.freepascal.org/for-in_loop#Proposed_extensions. From my
point of view it's essential part of iterators. Especially for data
Am 24.01.2013 20:36, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
That's debatable.
As long as there is only some few line idea, there cannot debated much.
Just an example: what happens with i if I start to delete from s during
the for loop?
___
fpc-devel maillist -
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Jeppe Græsdal Johansen
jjoha...@student.aau.dk wrote:
I think the idea is good if the feature is implemented as optional.
That way:
- If the enumerator class implements a CurrentIndex method then the for loop
can have an index variable.
- If not then the for
In our previous episode, Florian Kl?mpfl said:
As long as there is only some few line idea, there cannot debated much.
http://www.freepascal.org/faq.var#extensionselect
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Florian Klämpfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote:
Am 24.01.2013 20:36, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
That's debatable.
As long as there is only some few line idea, there cannot debated much.
It is more: an idea with implementation and tests ;)
Just an example: what
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
In our previous episode, Florian Kl?mpfl said:
As long as there is only some few line idea, there cannot debated much.
http://www.freepascal.org/faq.var#extensionselect
Yes, current discussion is based on that
Am 24.01.2013 21:35, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Florian Klämpfl flor...@freepascal.org
wrote:
Am 24.01.2013 20:36, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
That's debatable.
As long as there is only some few line idea, there cannot debated much.
It is more: an idea with
Am 24.01.2013 22:26, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Florian Klämpfl flor...@freepascal.org
wrote:
Just an example: what happens with i if I start to delete from s during
the for loop?
Exactly the same thing as in the current for-in loop: either a range check
Am 24.01.2013 21:41, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
In our previous episode, Florian Kl?mpfl said:
As long as there is only some few line idea, there cannot debated much.
http://www.freepascal.org/faq.var#extensionselect
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Florian Klämpfl flor...@freepascal.org wrote:
Am 24.01.2013 22:26, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
in all three cases, the effect will be more-or-less the same.
In the first two cases the programmer knows that he does something
strange, actually he can even adjust i
On 01/24/13 19:36, Alexander Klenin wrote:
Enumerators are not iterators.
Eh... actually, they are? Why do you think otherwise?
Enumerators are limited in functionality. Iterators are the full-blown
thing. Common Iterator API is something like Next, Prev, Reset, HasNext,
HasPrev etc.
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
mich...@freepascal.org wrote:
If you want full fledged iterators, use classes.
Please provide example of your suggestion for the case in the wiki.
I don't need to provide *anything*.
Of course you do not, this is why I said please :)
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys
gra...@geldenhuys.co.uk wrote:
On 01/24/13 19:36, Alexander Klenin wrote:
Enumerators are not iterators.
Eh... actually, they are? Why do you think otherwise?
Enumerators are limited in functionality. Iterators are the full-blown
thing.
On 01/24/13 23:26, Alexander Klenin wrote:
If you want full fledged iterators, use classes.
Please provide example of your suggestion for the case in the wiki.
I don't need to provide *anything*.
Of course you do not, this is why I said please :)
However, it is impossible to have a
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys
gra...@geldenhuys.co.uk wrote:
On 01/24/13 23:26, Alexander Klenin wrote:
If you want full fledged iterators, use classes.
Please provide example of your suggestion for the case in the wiki.
I don't need to provide *anything*.
Of course
Hi all,
I want to clarify what *feature will be optional* and will not break
compatibility. I suppose what back compatibility is required for all minor
changes. *I was thinking it's always by default :)*
*Michael Van Canneyt*,
FPC is not the playground for every possible idea out there.
If
25.01.2013 11:47, Василий Кевролетин пишет:
May be you understood what I'm from university in wrong way. It does
*not* mean what I need to quickly do any changes anywhere. It means what
I have resources /(time, motivation, direct support of very good
programmer) /to improve good open project.
101 - 141 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
