Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
The beauty of the current solution is that static and dynamic arrays
can be substituted with each other, simple by changing the
declaration, and adding/removing a setlength. All other code can be
left as it is.
If you needed the "^" for dyn arrays everywhere, then you would have
to make huge changes throughout your code, if ever you needed to
change between static and dynamic arrays.
What is the problem with search-and-replace? If you are forced to
change your code you will have a closer look at it and may get aware
of side effects of the change.
problem? time! reviewing half a million lines of code or more? I don't
have the time.
Side effects? What side effects, if the test cases all pass afterwards,
then it is good as it is.
But it;s pointless to discuss, there are two (or more) views to the
topic. each side has chosen. Never mind what argument to come, no one is
going to change their view on the topic anyway.
And if you look at my original post. I did not put judgement on it. I
said it is not good, it is not bad, it simply is, and it is going to
stay as it is.
The last bit means: live with it, or use a language different from
pascal. If you choose to use something that you don't like, and that can
not be altered (as to much existing code depends onit), what is the
point of ranting about it? (this is a rhetorical question, no answer needed)
Martin
p.s.
this is my last post to this thread.
what ever you reply, you know what my answer would be, so I do not need
to post it.
And I also have a good idea what your answer would be, even if you chose
not to post it..... your choice
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
