On Mon, December 5, 2016 6:37 am, Sven Barth wrote: > > Again: I don't see why anyone thinks of generics as complex. Your mail > did not answer that in any way. >
Well for one, at least in Delphi, it forces you to throw stuff into a class that have no need. Like a simple array... This: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23447612/how-to-handle-a-plain-dynamic-array-using-generics Is much more complex than my IncludeFileParametricPolymorphism invention that allows you to program arrays generally, without throwing stuff into a class just because classes are the only thing the compiler knows about generically. Why? Why should everything be forced into a class when it need not be. Even PHP, as much as I hate it, allows you to program generally, on simple functions/procedures without forcing something into a class. But I don't know enough about fps generics to know if stuff needs to be forced into a class, as I have to start using generics and testing it out to really know. From what I've seen though, I'm certainly not and have never been a fan of less than and greater than signs.... They tick me off enough in HTML enough. But that's not really a real point, that's just a pet peeve to deal with... _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
