On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, vfclists . wrote:
On 12 July 2013 08:18, Michael Van Canneyt <[email protected]> wrote: On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, vfclists . wrote: Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property? I think they should. One for the design itself and one for describing the usage at design or runtime. No. It takes memory and needs management. Putting this in a basic class such as TComponent is not an option. Your suggestion to 'not store it in the final executable' is not even remotely possible. You can put a comment in front of the object or any of its properties, and the lazarus IDE will display this comment for you. It does not take memory, and performs the same function. The only reason the smalltalk people didn't take that approach, I suppose, is because they don't have an intelligent IDE. LOL. The Smalltalk IDE "IS" the original IDE and over 30 years later it is yet to be matched for functionality and practicality.
Yet they didn't find it possible to intelligently make use of comments in code ? Curious, to say the least ?
This comment issue is like approaching a person on the street and asking him "What is your occupation?" - and he doesn't can't tell you. You can only look at his name badge if he is wearing one, and find out from some authority who he might be, assuming you know who and where to ask.
What kind of remark is that ? His occupation is none of your business to begin with.In each case, a) Your proposal will not be done for sound technical reasons.
b) The Lazarus IDE offers an excellent alternative. c) The new property would be useless if people don't use it, and backfitting the many thousands of components so it actually uses the new property is a huge task, which I do not see happening anytime soon. d) You can perfectly create a descendent of TComponent that introduces it and use it in all your projects. Michael.
_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - [email protected] http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
