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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
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
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
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:
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
23 matches
Mail list logo
