On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
Am 22.04.2011 14:01, schrieb michael.vancann...@wisa.be:
By this rule, the helper class/operator/beast you proposed in the other
mail
should also not be available, because it is not known during definition.
Just as a helper is 'attached' to a type, an operator is equally
'attached' to the type. Both can be "attached" by a third party that
requires it : all that is needed to use it is that it is in your current
scope.
IMO a helper is bound closer to a type than an operator.
Please explain ? To my understanding, they're on exactly the same level ?
(from a language feature point of view).
I mean, what can be more close to a type than a := operator ?
To me this means that if you allow the one, you should - logically -
allow the other.
(or vice versa)
With the same reasoning, one should allow also functions taking the type
as parameter.
Functions are different, because they are not something you attach to a type.
A function just happens to have one parameter (out of possibly many) of a
particular type.
A class helper and operator are explicitly designed for this type, enhancing it
to be able to work with it.
But that's beside the point:
I just think that if you except one and the other not, then that does not
look like a very consequent application of generics, more like patchwork
instead of a well integrated language feature.
I see no reason why you would prefer one language feature above another
in such cases.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
