2011/11/6 Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org>: > I am not against closure functionality, although I highly doubt it is *that* > useful as some people make it out to be. Even so, I use it in my Javascript > programming.
I'm also not entirely sure about the necessity of closures in OP, but I must admit I am not totally against it. I am somewhat undecided. Since we have objects we can easily port every algorithm that needs closures 1:1 to OP without changing anything, we just have to put a ton of type definition boilerplate in front of it but the algorithm itself will look and work 100% the same. It will just pass objects around instead of closures (and in some simple cases where we don't need to enclose data we can take the shortcut and use a procedure variable). In Javascript there is no difference between 'object' and 'function', they are the same thing, every function is an object, creating functions and passing them around is a totally normal thing in JS, just as normal as it is in OP to create Instances of classes and pass them around. But I cannot totally deny that closures in OP would be a cool feature. They are not necessary to do what can already be done but they still would be an extremely cool feature which can increase the expression/noise ratio significantly in some cases if used appropriately. And I believe eventually they will be implemented in FPC. I have absolutely no doubt. BTW: Here is a post I found while googling for Delphi examples, he explains the approach they took in Delphi: http://compilers.iecc.com/comparch/article/09-04-067 _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
