On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 10:28 PM Dmitry Boyarintsev < [email protected]> wrote:
> Distantly? you're proposing to introduce a reference-to-type declaration > within a parameter. Without giving it any name. > Fine. But that would requires a type-casting within the code to the same > type as has been declared within the parameter. > Otherwise you're creating some type, that cannot be casted-to. Which is > odd. > > So if you're fan of having ^Integer as a parameter type, then you pretty > much self-declaring to be a fan of (^Integer)(varname) as well. > This is.... completely ludicrous, to say the very least. "PSomething: ^TSomeType" declared in a method signature would behave *completely identically in every way *to how "var PSomething: ^TSomeType" *already behaves right now*, as far as using it inside the scope of the method body is concerned. It introduces *nothing* that does not already exist. On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 10:28 PM Dmitry Boyarintsev < [email protected]> wrote: > t's kinda what language designers HAVE to do. > It's nice just to throw out the "next-big-thing-cool-idea" out there and > make yourself look smart. > But you actually HAVE to think everything through. > If you don't then your idea might not be so cool after all. > I have been programming in Pascal for decades and decades. This has *absolutely nothing *to do with the stupid "oh look another person trying to add a fancy new feature" thing that people insist on whining about any time anyone suggests *anything at all* (despite the fact that the phenomenon itself only nominally exists in any capacity. The functionality I'm suggesting is *utterly trivial. *If you don't think so, it's likely you don't really quite get what I'm actually talking about.
_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - [email protected] http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
