I started in on this already and here’s the first conflict I found when trying
operators.
What should happen if you assign a record to another record with a default
property?
var
wrapper: TWrapper;
other: TWrapper;
// this should assign to ‘obj’ via the default property
wrappe
> On Sep 4, 2018, at 12:35 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
> wrote:
>
> I think you need to be clearer what you want to achieve in the end. The
> default property as intended by Maciej has the idea that it hoists the
> operators of the default property type to the record it is contained in.
> E.
On 03.09.2018 09:15, Ryan Joseph wrote:
> Thank you for bearing with me, so finally here are my questions:
>
> 1) Given this is critical to make management operators work smoothly what
> does the compiler team think about this idea to have a default property or
> “with" in classes/records?
>
>
On Mon, 3 Sep 2018, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Sep 3, 2018, at 9:17 PM, Martin wrote:
No it is not the same.
You.f.Free;
will always work, it is not ambiguous.
You.Free;
depends on no method Free being declared on the class of You, or any of its
base classes, or any other default class (if
On 03/09/2018 17:00, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Sep 3, 2018, at 9:17 PM, Martin wrote:
You.f.Free;
will always work, it is not ambiguous.
You.Free;
depends on no method Free being declared on the class of You, or any of its
base classes, or any other default class (if more than one is allowed) t
> On Sep 3, 2018, at 9:17 PM, Martin wrote:
>
> No it is not the same.
>
> You.f.Free;
> will always work, it is not ambiguous.
>
> You.Free;
> depends on no method Free being declared on the class of You, or any of its
> base classes, or any other default class (if more than one is allowed)
> On Sep 3, 2018, at 9:17 PM, Martin wrote:
>
> You.f.Free;
> will always work, it is not ambiguous.
>
> You.Free;
> depends on no method Free being declared on the class of You, or any of its
> base classes, or any other default class (if more than one is allowed) that
> would be searched a
> On Sep 3, 2018, at 8:16 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
> wrote:
>
> The whole point of 'default' is to be able to make this assignment, for
> example to implement nullable types.
Just thought about this some more and realized that if you’re thinking more in
terms of nullable types (which rely to
On 03/09/2018 15:56, Ryan Joseph wrote:
In your example if the “a” property was default than:
You.Free;
would be the same as:
You.f.Free;
right? I just don’t see where the name of the property applies. The property
*removed* a name in fact. It’s like an anti-name. ;)
No it is not the sam
> On Sep 3, 2018, at 8:16 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
> wrote:
>
>> The
>> only reason we have the name is because we’re trying to add this feature
>> on top of properties syntax. Array properties had this oddity also and I
>> would prefer to just omit the name since it’s meaningless.
>
> It is
On Mon, 3 Sep 2018, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:14 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Sep 3, 2018, at 2:41 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
'with' is terribly awkward.
“with” came to mind because it’s basically a with statement but within a
class. Properties had another side
> On Sep 3, 2018, at 4:14 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
> wrote:
>
>>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 2:41 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
>>> wrote:
>>> 'with' is terribly awkward.
>>
>> “with” came to mind because it’s basically a with statement but within a
>> class. Properties had another side effect of requiri
On Mon, 3 Sep 2018, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Sep 3, 2018, at 2:41 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
'with' is terribly awkward.
“with” came to mind because it’s basically a with statement but within a
class. Properties had another side effect of requiring naming which is
redundant (I’d proba
> On Sep 3, 2018, at 2:41 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
> wrote:
>
> 'with' is terribly awkward.
“with” came to mind because it’s basically a with statement but within a class.
Properties had another side effect of requiring naming which is redundant (I’d
probably just underscore the name always
On Mon, 3 Sep 2018, Ryan Joseph wrote:
I’m sorry to bring this one up again but it was touched upon in regards to
management operators and auto free objects. Please bear with me while I recap.
I’m writing this email today because I just had this exact same problem in
my code and I’m desperat
I’m sorry to bring this one up again but it was touched upon in regards to
management operators and auto free objects. Please bear with me while I recap.
To summarize what I said last time was that I wanted a way to include “with”
statement functionality in classes and records to aid in delegati
16 matches
Mail list logo
