In our previous episode, Matt Emson said: > >> It also proves that such solution external to the language is possible. > >> That > >> weakens the case for a language feature > >> > > > > > > My point exactly! The language doesn't need such a feature because your > > editor of choice should be able to do that, and in Lazarus IDE that is the > > case. > > This is unrelated though. Refactoring has its place, but is absolutely > specific to a single IDE.
No, there are multiple IDEs that support it to some extend or the other. XCode, Eclipse has had plugins in the past, Emacs (if you can find the editor in that OS) > If one never intends to use that IDE, the functionality is gone. It's only important in ease of use and shorthand cases. If it really is functionality that is not doable otherwise, it's a different matter. Nobody will argue that a template that generates a wrapper around a container class is a substitute for generics. IOW, for this argument, the only advantage in favour must be shorthand, or other editing work related speedup of workflow. > I don't > care for the feature either, but I can also see why it would be desirable > over mechanical string replacement, no matter how advanced. I don't believe in adding shorthands solely based on such reasons. THat is a carte blanche for all kinds of char twiddling non improvmeents. And in this case IMHO it is a specialisation of CASE, which is already an specialization of nested if then. If we implement that, we'll get the next level of specialization within the year probably, and probablyagain with similar argumentation _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
