How is auto more "ugly" than literally any other modifier in the entire language? They're all just english words, of varying length. Also building features on top of a language will always result in worse performance than having them be a part of it.
On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:05 AM, R0b0t1 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Ryan Joseph > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> On Jul 22, 2018, at 4:54 AM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> And that's why there are people who *do* care about it. Of course you > can put everything and the kitchen think into a language. But if it doesn't > fit the language than you'll simply end up with a melting pot that doesn't > feel coherent. Also while people might not consciously think about the > spirit of the language I think they'll feel if the language is coherent > with itself or not. > > > > The spirit of the language is really hard to define in my opinion. I > think we all agree that if we changed begin/end to {} we would all be > offended but why again is “auto” not in the spirit of the language? It > looks like Pascal to me. Calling Free at the end of blocks and inside > destructors feels like Pascal to me. > > > > Telling the compiler to call it for me by typing “auto” instead of > “Free” doesn’t feel non-pascal. I don’t get it. > > > > type > > TMyClass = class > > private > > list: TFPGList; auto; > > otherList: TFPGList; auto; > > end; > > > > var > > c: TMyClass; auto; > > > > begin > > c := TMyClass.Create; > > > > This looks ugly. It also introduces modifiers to variable > declarations. Some features should not be part of the language, they > should be built on top of it. > _______________________________________________ > fpc-pascal maillist - [email protected] > http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal >
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - [email protected] http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
