On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Craig Peterson <cr...@scootersoftware.com>wrote:
> Dmitry, no offense, but you're making a lot of assumptions about our > code with no basis to do so, and I'm honestly not interested in getting > into a philosophical debate about the "correct" way to develop software. > There are cases where anonymous methods will work well and cases where > we'll have to split it up. It's a tool that I'd like to have available, > not something I'm going to cram where it doesn't belong. > That's very valid point. I do not know how your code, I don't know who is based and organized. So I have to go from my experience on how the problems (with UI) are solved. I also have a vast experience of (language/libraries) tools being misused and underused. (My fear here is that anonymous functions will be misused dramatically once being available. And I'm fine with that for C-syntax languages, but I'd hate to handle in future for Pascal) My general point is - in many cases (pascal) language is underused. And many problems could be solved without a new language constructions. Use the reasonable minimum as much as possible. So sticking to an existing syntax minimum improves portability of the code (portability not just across platforms and/or compilers, but for integration with different 3d-party libraries). You've done your considerations and you've done your choice, so let's wait until anonymous functions are available in FPC. thanks, Dmitry
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
