If you would at least read original message and responded to what I asked or at least "not responded" maybe I wouldn't feel so stupid for asking my question. But hopefully this will be the last message in this thread.
Seems a bit sad to me that, I didn't get answer to "what I really asked" but a lot of flaming posts about one btw. in my question, even subject says "Question about interfaces" and not "Question about operators". 1. Couldn't interfaces support blind properties (specifying only read write capability)? Without having to specify function and procedure for writing. Property access varies from one interface inheritor to another and interface cares only about read write ability of property. Blind properties could be applied without any loosing of compatibility. And demands a whole lot more code in the way as it is applied now. What you would get from blind interface properties? - Lot less code. - Smaller more readable interfaces - freedom of property implementation in classes 2. Question about operators was about YES: "existing" and YES: "pascal standard" "is" operator and interfaces. Instead of needing to write if Supports(obj, ISomeInterface) then wouldn't it be nicer to be able to write if (obj is ISomeInterface) then if (obj is [ISomeInterface, ISomeOtherInterface]) then Which is completely what you all said. I just noted that standard pascal operator "is" does not exist for interfaces. Array checking would be nice if one uses fine grained interfaces and therefore usually needs more than one interface for one function Other possibilities like ['?','%','$','|','&','::','^'] were only named under btw. (and how can btw. under question 2 become the main flaming topic is out of my reason, maybe its time to my annual lobotomy) 3. Interface multiple inheritance. Asking just for a reason why not, for sole curiosity. I solved that for my self with macros. Thanks to Nikolay at least I think I got that one answered (he responded with negative reason enough). And I must say that as I read his answer, I started finding the way to implement them, without bothering devel team. It is doable, ugly but doable. Just as I implemented foreach(). What are benefits of interface multiple inheritance: - No monolithic structure - Fine grained interfaces (smaller, easier to read) - Lot less code duplication - Hierarchy is lot less monolithic - Lot more power in functionality combinations and easier determination of functionality On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 04:23 -0500, Bob Shaffer wrote: > I think I'm going to have to agree with everyone else on this one. If I > read this, thinking it was pascal code, I wouldn't have the slightest idea > what these % and/or $ operators were doing. Operator overloading should I must say I don't really bother about, but what you said is plain wrong, so I can't be quiet That would be valid for community written projects only. So, no proprietary software exists. > never be used to change the meaning of an operator. It's there so you can > make existing operators work with abstract datatypes. If you save a few > minutes coding things with operators that only have meaning to you, nobody > else can understand what it does without a lot of extra work. > Ever heard about documentation, and coding specifications being associated with project. > If you really want to add things like this to the language, I think that > the free pascal compiler's source code is all included, written (mostly) > in pascal itself, and I've heard that it's self-compilable, so you already > have all the tools to develop your own extended pascal language. > Already doing that. Don't worry. p.s. Before you try to burn heretics, at least have a reason, not a "quick doubt about heresy" ml > ml said: > > On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 01:40 +0200, Nikolay Nikolov wrote: > >> ml wrote: > >> > >> >btw. When writing about operators, why do they contain such little > >> >possibilities. operator overloads could contain possibility for > >> >['?','%','$','|','&','::','^'] > >> > > >> > > >> These are C++ operators, aren't they? > > > > Yes (some of them are, but not all), but if you think about it basic > > definition of operators is to make source code more easily readable. > > > > Couldn't you imagine to use > > a := b % c; > > and a would actually contain real percentage?? > > > > or > > s := 'Value is : ' $ CurrentValue; > > > > and this would translate CurrentValue to currency and add to a string? > > > > btw. and yes,:) my line of work forces me to use pascal, c#, c++, c, > > sql, shell and a little bit of php. So I'm forced to see the beauty and > > the ugly parts and features of each one. And operators are a real life > > saver, at least for future reading of your code (that is if they are > > carefully designed). > > > > ml > > > > _______________________________________________ > fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org > http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
