I think it is useful, because it allows future language extensions to
also use the <> syntax without conflicting with generics (e.g., the
Objective Pascal draft syntax also makes use of angle brackets for a
couple of things).
Then my second syntax proposal might overcome possible conflict with future or
other <> symbol implementation, since it uses no <> symbol at all, and IMO more
pascalish (less cryptic). :-D
In short, my second syntax proposal is:
- generic definition syntax (type section):
{type_name} = generic {type_definition} of {generic_holder} ;
- generic implementation syntax (var section):
{var_name} : specialize {generic_type} for {implemented_type} ;
or if it's defined in type section:
{type_name} = specialize {generic_type} for {implemented_type} ;
-Bee-
has Bee.ography at:
http://beeography.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
