On 15.08.2017 22:45, Graeme Geldenhuys via Lazarus wrote:
How is that not "abuse"???
IMHO it's a major shortcoming to define "string" as "printable text". In
fact the name "String" does not suggest this at all. A "string" in my
understanding just is a sequence of similar "things".
A string type was definitely not the right choice.
Notwithstanding the discussion about the mere wording, this only would
hold, if the system would provide a differently named non "printable
text" basic type that comes with the features needed for such usage:
reference counting, lazy copy, simple operators for concatenating and
element extraction and replacement, built-in function for substring
locating, ...
-Michael
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org
https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus
