Hello,
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
That there are different types of iterators (forward, backward, and random access, readonly, writeable, ...) is definitely a feature of a specific iterator imo.
I'm more thinking on different properties. E.g. on address, on name etc.
I don't understand that remark right now, but it sounds interesting (maybe because it's late). Care to explain that briefly? (Or give a reference)
I don't buy that kind of arguments. This is Pascal, not Matlab. You need to have a general idea about is what happening, and knowledge about typing is a fundament of a strongly typed language.
I don't agree to this argument that this needs to reflect in the syntax (your argument is "this is Pascal and that's it"). The type of a container is the specification after the double colon, not the loop structure/syntax. It does not disallow the traditional way either; all components used (container, element) in this syntax are properly typed, and it does not weaken typing at all.
My point was that if you invent syntax, at least make it somewhat general. However that is pretty much the point of this extension. A few people knew this construct from VB, which has no sane syntax anyway, and complained about the two extra keystrokes. It has nothing to do with design or thinking about a nice, general solution.
and
*ducks into cover, awaiting flames* =)
IMHO this time to find arguments to justify something stupid as for..each
You are right in these aspects; I'm not the person who cares much about that "foreach" either. That means that I can happily live without it and don't care about this syntax which is lacking usefulness, so I accept and actually agree to this decision in the end.
Regards, Thomas
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
