On 2/24/2010 2:48 AM, Matt Emson wrote:
I think an interjection at this point is required - all of this is
down to personal experience, preference and style. It is what you are
used to. Having done 10+ years of Pascal, yes this is very alien.
Having done 5+ years of C# and C based languages, no
Sent from my iPhone
On 24 Feb 2010, at 06:10, Jürgen Hestermann
wrote:
Well, *this* can be done much easier ;-):
I think an interjection at this point is required - all of this is
down to personal experience, preference and style. It is what you are
used to. Having done 10+ years
You are looking at the wrong example! Clearly, for variable assignment
you don't gain anything. But for a function argument you do!
Realy?
WriteLn('The value is ',(if X then 'true' else 'false'),
' at the moment.');
Well, *this* can be done much easier ;-):
-
Hi!
Am Samstag, den 20.02.2010, 19:01 +0100 schrieb Jürgen Hestermann:
>
> > y := case Other of
> > bla : 'hello';
> > foo : 'bye';
> > baz : 'adius';
> >end;
>
> What do you gain with this?
> Doesn't look much different to
>
> case Other of
>bla : y := 'h
On Sat 20 Feb 2010, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
>
> > y := case Other of
> > bla : 'hello';
> > foo : 'bye';
> > baz : 'adius';
> >end;
>
> What do you gain with this?
> Doesn't look much different to
>
> case Other of
>bla : y := 'hello';
>foo : y := 'bye
In our previous episode, Matt Emson said:
> Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > IMHO Prism is not even Delphi. Just recycling of the brand.
>
> Laying cards on the proverbial table, I don't think it was ever intended
> to be Delphi. RemObjects developed the compiler completely outside of
> Delphi for
In our previous episode, Matt Emson said:
> >> It also proves that such solution external to the language is possible.
> >> That
> >> weakens the case for a language feature
> >>
> >
> >
> > My point exactly! The language doesn't need such a feature because your
> > editor of choice should be
Jonas Maebe wrote:
Maybe this discussion could be moved to the fpc-other list? It's not
really directly applicable to FPC anymore.
Indeed, which is why I said "[..] I can also see why it is not something
worth discussing further." I guess if someone was committing to
developing the compiler m
On 22 Feb 2010, at 14:35, Anthony Walter wrote:
The syntax that Prism uses is a lot cleaner in many respects -
especially
removing the "procedure"/"function" conundrum and using instead
"method".
However, in other ways it is horrible and so I can also see why it
is not
something worth dis
> The syntax that Prism uses is a lot cleaner in many respects - especially
> removing the "procedure"/"function" conundrum and using instead "method".
> However, in other ways it is horrible and so I can also see why it is not
> something worth discussing further.
Matt,
I am no Prism fan (I pref
Marco van de Voort wrote:
IMHO Prism is not even Delphi. Just recycling of the brand.
Laying cards on the proverbial table, I don't think it was ever intended
to be Delphi. RemObjects developed the compiler completely outside of
Delphi for a number of years before the technology was licens
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Marco van de Voort wrote:
It also proves that such solution external to the language is possible. That
weakens the case for a language feature
My point exactly! The language doesn't need such a feature because your
editor of choice should be able to do that, a
Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> It also proves that such solution external to the language is possible. That
> weakens the case for a language feature
My point exactly! The language doesn't need such a feature because your
editor of choice should be able to do that, and in Lazarus IDE that is the
Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> IMHO Prism is not even Delphi. Just recycling of the brand.
+1
> I'd rather see the time spent on features that really matter (like generics,
> SEH/COM support, unicode).
Definitely. I would like to add 'Interface Delegation' to that list. It's a
vital part of Int
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 20:37:12 +0100, JoshyFun wrote about Re[2]:
[fpc-pascal] some new features to delphi prisem:
> Sunday, February 21, 2010, 7:29:54 PM, you wrote:
>
> MK> This is a matter of taste, I can imagine uses when at least
> MK> functional "if" would make code *more* readable. Noone for
In our previous episode, Michalis Kamburelis said:
> > You only need to change one variable, and all other instances will
> > change to. And syncron-edit applies to any selection of text. So
> > already works in more cases.
> >
>
> Which is cool, but only if you and all your contributors use Laza
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> On 21 February 2010 17:00, Michalis Kamburelis
> wrote:
>> Which also means "less chance of mistake". For example, if you decide
>> later to change "y" to "y1", you only have to change the code in one
>> place, not three.
>
>
> Unfortunately you are wrong Michalis. Ev
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> I'd rather see the time spent on features that really matter (like generics,
> SEH/COM support, unicode).
+1
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal
In our previous episode, dmitry boyarintsev said:
> > assignment. Case begin..end blocks can do much more than simple
> > oneliners.
>
> Maybe some-one would like to catch-up with Delphi/Prism?
> Wouldn't be possible to start a Prism mode to support new Delphi
> syntax features? (or modeswitch, ju
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys
wrote:
> I vote against adding this language feature. It's not pascal-like and
> actually makes the code harder to read. It also only applies to simple
> assignment. Case begin..end blocks can do much more than simple
> oneliners.
Maybe some-one
On 21 February 2010 17:00, Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
>
> Which also means "less chance of mistake". For example, if you decide
> later to change "y" to "y1", you only have to change the code in one
> place, not three.
Unfortunately you are wrong Michalis. Ever heard of 'syncron-edit'?
http:/
In our previous episode, dmitry boyarintsev said:
> Does this innovation makes "case" a function?
I'd rather say an expression.
> procedure SomeProc(const v: string);
>
> SomeProc ( case Other of
> a: 'a';
> b: 'b';
>end; );
>
Does this innovation makes "case" a function?
procedure SomeProc(const v: string);
SomeProc ( case Other of
a: 'a';
b: 'b';
end; );
Imho, this reduces the code readability.
thanks,
dmitry
___
ik wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 20:01, Jürgen Hestermann
> mailto:juergen.hesterm...@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
>
>
> y := case Other of
> bla : 'hello';
> foo : 'bye';
> baz : 'adius';
> end;
>
>
> What do you gain with this
y := case Other of
bla : 'hello';
foo : 'bye';
baz : 'adius';
end;
What do you gain with this?
Doesn't look much different to
case Other of
bla : y := 'hello';
foo : y := 'bye';
baz : y := 'adius';
In our previous episode, ik said:
> >
>
> Shorter write imho.
Or something easily marketable to make people upgrade. Not a problem of FPC.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pasca
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 20:01, Jürgen Hestermann
wrote:
>
>
> y := case Other of
>> bla : 'hello';
>> foo : 'bye';
>> baz : 'adius';
>> end;
>>
>
> What do you gain with this?
> Doesn't look much different to
>
> case Other of
> bla : y := 'hello';
> foo : y := 'b
y := case Other of
bla : 'hello';
foo : 'bye';
baz : 'adius';
end;
What do you gain with this?
Doesn't look much different to
case Other of
bla : y := 'hello';
foo : y := 'bye';
baz : y := 'adius';
end;
__
28 matches
Mail list logo
