> On Jun 7, 2019, at 5:08 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-devel
> wrote:
>
> Before we add a postfix operator I prefer not to add *any* of this *at all*.
What about smart pointers then? I don’t want Pascal to get left behind on this.
We need a solution for this and I want it to be the least intrusive
Am 07.06.2019 um 23:06 schrieb Ryan Joseph:
On Jun 7, 2019, at 4:56 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-devel
wrote:
Because I don't want to open the can of worms that is going to be overloading the postfix
"operator". People are going to abuse the hell out of it (they will with default properties as
w
> On Jun 7, 2019, at 4:56 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-devel
> wrote:
>
> Because I don't want to open the can of worms that is going to be overloading
> the postfix "operator". People are going to abuse the hell out of it (they
> will with default properties as well, don't get me wrong there), ma
Am 07.06.2019 um 22:50 schrieb Ryan Joseph:
On Jun 7, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-devel
wrote:
Am 07.06.2019 um 22:41 schrieb Ryan Joseph:
Does that make sense? I’d like to scratch the idea of default properties and do
this instead if it was permitted.
No. FPC is not going down t
> On Jun 7, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-devel
> wrote:
>
> Am 07.06.2019 um 22:41 schrieb Ryan Joseph:
>> Does that make sense? I’d like to scratch the idea of default properties and
>> do this instead if it was permitted.
> No. FPC is not going down that operator madness.
So why ar
Am 07.06.2019 um 22:41 schrieb Ryan Joseph:
Does that make sense? I’d like to scratch the idea of default properties and do
this instead if it was permitted.
No. FPC is not going down that operator madness.
Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-devel maillist - fp
I was thinking about my patch for default properties and how invasive the
changes are into the compiler and heavy handed the approach is. I’m not even
sure the compiler team would accept it like it is since it has such potential
for overreach and having strange unpredictable effects.
In my opin
