Re: [fpc-pascal] "is"

2005-04-07 Thread Thomas Schatzl
Hello, Marco van de Voort schrieb: That there are different types of iterators (forward, backward, and random access, readonly, writeable, ...) is definitely a feature of a specific iterator imo. I'm more thinking on different properties. E.g. on address, on name etc. I don't understand that rem

Re: [fpc-pascal] "is"

2005-04-07 Thread Marco van de Voort
> >><< do something with elem >> > >>end; > >>[...] > > > > True, BUT... hmm, I actually have 3 BUTS > > It is some sort of syntactic sugar, so all your but's are valid at least > in some way. Nobody ever doubted this. Good. > > BUT 1: some form shorter syntax can be thought up for _each_

Re: [fpc-pascal] "is"

2005-04-07 Thread Florian Klaempfl
Thomas Schatzl wrote: > > Additionally if you examine code, _far_ the most applications do simple > forward (and maybe backward) iteration over a collection (also because > there are not that much collections where random access makes sense > runtime-wise). There come a lot in my mind: e.g. conta

Re: [fpc-pascal] "is"

2005-04-07 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
On Thu, 7 Apr 2005, Thomas Schatzl wrote: > Hello, > > Thomas Schatzl schrieb: > > Michael Van Canneyt schrieb: > > > > > For example; > > > MI for interfaces for me is strange (to say the least) because > > > interfaces were introduced to avoid the mess of MI in the first > > > place. So why

Re: [fpc-pascal] "is"

2005-04-07 Thread Thomas Schatzl
Hello, Thomas Schatzl schrieb: Michael Van Canneyt schrieb: For example; MI for interfaces for me is strange (to say the least) because interfaces were introduced to avoid the mess of MI in the first place. So why on earth would you want to introduce it ?? Since interfaces do not have/inherit imple

Re: [fpc-pascal] "is"

2005-04-07 Thread Thomas Schatzl
Hello, Marco van de Voort schrieb: you could write: x : TSomeElement; someCollection : TSomeCollection; [...] foreach elem in someCollection do begin << do something with elem >> end; [...] True, BUT... hmm, I actually have 3 BUTS It is some sort of syntactic sugar, so all your but's are va

Re: [fpc-pascal] "is"

2005-04-07 Thread Thomas Schatzl
Hello, Michael Van Canneyt schrieb: For example; MI for interfaces for me is strange (to say the least) because interfaces were introduced to avoid the mess of MI in the first place. So why on earth would you want to introduce it ?? Because MI itself isn't bad, it's often an appropriate representat