There was some discussion of TStringList and people asking for a different
base of work along these lines... I might have something.
Actually, whether or not he remembers - Michael Van Canneyt (Forgive my
spelling if I'm wrong) like 5 years ago explained some very important
"class" inner workings
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote:
> Daniël Mantione wrote:
> > Op Tue, 23 Jan 2007, schreef Luiz Americo Pereira Camara:
> >
> >
> > > Ale? Katona wrote:
> > >
> > > > I agree. I'm starting to feel sick of all the compat crap you guys put
> > > > up with playing the
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Tue, 23 Jan 2007, schreef Luiz Americo Pereira Camara:
Ale? Katona wrote:
I agree. I'm starting to feel sick of all the compat crap you guys put
up with playing the bitch of delphi. The problem is that now delphi is
the bitch of .net so I think wisest would be
Op Tue, 23 Jan 2007, schreef Luiz Americo Pereira Camara:
> Ale? Katona wrote:
> > I agree. I'm starting to feel sick of all the compat crap you guys put
> > up with playing the bitch of delphi. The problem is that now delphi is
> > the bitch of .net so I think wisest would be to implement 100%
Aleš Katona wrote:
I agree. I'm starting to feel sick of all the compat crap you guys put
up with playing the bitch of delphi. The problem is that now delphi is
the bitch of .net so I think wisest would be to implement 100% compat up
to delphi 7 and be done with it. Then just document the fact an
Op Tue, 23 Jan 2007, schreef Bram Kuijvenhoven:
> Well, if for Chrome and/or Delphi support we need the &, then it will have to
> be implemented anyway.
Only if we are able to compile code we currently cannot compile. For
Chrome it would be a long term project before you can compile anything,
Marco van de Voort wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
But, the 'importing identifiers' from another language is a false argument;
With a simple rule (prepend with _) you have this too. It can even be
automated. You don't need to butcher the language for it;
The _ trick is widely used indeed, bu
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Thorsten Engler wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> > So instead you'd put a & ?
> >
> > Hardly more readable, I'd say. On the contrary. _ is used
> > already, & is not.
>
> And that's exactly the reason for using & and not _. It's not part
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> So instead you'd put a & ?
>
> Hardly more readable, I'd say. On the contrary. _ is used
> already, & is not.
And that's exactly the reason for using & and not _. It's not part of a
valid identifier.
If you look at:
&class
You see directly i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> > The _ trick is widely used indeed, but imho those underscores make
> > code slightly less readable and also less aesthetic.
>
> Less readable than & ? What is the exact aesthetic ranking of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]&*()_+ then? :-)
& is an proper esc
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > > But, the 'importing identifiers' from another language is a false
> > > argument;
> > > With a simple rule (prepend with _) you have this too. It can even be
> > > automated. You don't need to butcher the langua
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Bram Kuijvenhoven wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > But, the 'importing identifiers' from another language is a false argument;
> > With a simple rule (prepend with _) you have this too. It can even be
> > automated. You don't need to butcher the language for it;
>
>
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > But, the 'importing identifiers' from another language is a false argument;
> > With a simple rule (prepend with _) you have this too. It can even be
> > automated. You don't need to butcher the language for it;
>
> The _ trick is widely used indeed, but imho thos
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
But, the 'importing identifiers' from another language is a false argument;
With a simple rule (prepend with _) you have this too. It can even be
automated. You don't need to butcher the language for it;
The _ trick is widely used indeed, but imho those underscores m
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Thorsten Engler wrote:
>
> I also want to point out that I'm in no way proposing of adding this to any
> of the existing modes. I've added it to a new mode Chrome. As for "why do
> you want to get rid of...", for the same reason you do anything that you do
> in $mode delphi
> c) new $mode: m_chrome
>
> Currently baseed on objfpc with the addition of all 3 new mode switches. In
> addition to a) and b) m_chrome allows the use of "method" as an alternative
> to both procedure and function (if the method is a procedure or function can
> simply be determined by the pres
> I'm very against this (especially in mode objfpc), and I don't get the
> point at all.
> In my opinion we have to keep the language as clean as possible.
Agree. Also note that this is only part of Delphi, whose compability is
still on hold. E.g. D7 reports "illegal character in input &($26)".
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> What could be a rood reason to escape a keyword? Why do you
> as programmer insist on the use of a keyword? Why do you
> insist that your property is called 'unit'? It's just
> obfuscating the code. With this you can mangle your code completely...
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Daniël Mantione wrote:
>
>
> Op Tue, 23 Jan 2007, schreef Michael Van Canneyt:
>
> > I think this goes against all that pascal stands for. We don't want to
> > butcher the language. Next thing you'll be asking to have it case sensitive.
> > As a programmer you know that c
Op Tue, 23 Jan 2007, schreef Michael Van Canneyt:
> I think this goes against all that pascal stands for. We don't want to
> butcher the language. Next thing you'll be asking to have it case sensitive.
> As a programmer you know that certain keywords are keywords. Don't use them
> in your fields
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Thorsten Engler wrote:
> While playing around with the compiler source to familiarize myself I've
> produced the attached patch. While I didn't set out to produce anything for
> inclusion into the official codebase at least some of the changes might be
> generally useful.
>
I'm very against this (especially in mode objfpc), and I don't get the
point at all.
In my opinion we have to keep the language as clean as possible.
What could be a rood reason to escape a keyword? Why do you as
programmer insist on the use of a keyword? Why do you insist that your
property is c
22 matches
Mail list logo
