Am 2017-05-08 um 05:47 schrieb nore...@z505.com:
> It's similar to this feature:
> x,y,z := 1, 12, 7
> It's neat to be able to assign multiple variables on a single line. But
necessary? mandatory?
It's not even neat.
It would bloat the Pascal language unneccesarily (as many other additions have
> On May 8, 2017, at 10:47 AM, nore...@z505.com wrote:
>
> It's always easier said than done, to say "Why can't" and then have to write
> the actual parser code to do it ;-)
Yes indeed. I just looked over svn to see where Sven added his new dynamic
array initializers and I’m still totally conf
On 2017-04-28 01:01, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Apr 28, 2017, at 12:43 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
wrote:
It would introduce an ambiguity as "(x" could also complete to other
expressions (e.g. "(x + y) * 2" or even merely "(x)"). Especially
older Pascal compilers were geared towards the simplic
> On May 4, 2017, at 4:27 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> Scripting languages often already by default initialize a datatructure, and
> then such language constructs only performs additional initialization.
>
> Pascal and similar lowlevel languages don't by default initialize them, and
> the
Am 04.05.2017 10:37 schrieb "Ryan Joseph" :
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Ryan Joseph
wrote:
> >
> > I almost struck out there. ;) There’s at least a possibility for anyone
interested. A few years ago I looked at the compiler source and decided it
was beyond me to even understand the code b
In our previous episode, Ryan Joseph said:
> All structures have an automatically-generated memberwise initializer, which
> you can use to initialize the member properties of new structure instances.
> Initial values for the properties of the new instance can be passed to the
> memberwise initia
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Ryan Joseph wrote:
>
> I almost struck out there. ;) There’s at least a possibility for anyone
> interested. A few years ago I looked at the compiler source and decided it
> was beyond me to even understand the code base well enough to do anything.
> How do peop
Am 28.04.2017 14:09 schrieb "Mark Morgan Lloyd" <
markmll.fpc-pas...@telemetry.co.uk>:
> Is there any way that the length of an array being used for that sort of
job can be defined by what's put into it, rather than having to be
predefined?
No, there is not. Though I already had the idea that such
On 28/04/17 04:30, Ryan Joseph wrote:
Instead of making constructors and doing busy work It would be nice if Free
Pascal could let you assign records outside of type blocks like:
rec := (x: 0; y: 0; z: 0);
Why isn’t this possible btw? I saw some C++ code do this and it seems like an
obvious sol
Am 28.04.2017 09:23 schrieb "Ryan Joseph" :
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal <
fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> >
> > No, I mean
> >
> > rec := (x + y) * 2;
> >
> > The compiler has to differentiate these two.
>
> I see. It’s the parenthesis that are problemat
I see. It’s the parenthesis that are problematic. I guess the solution would be
curly brackets:
rec := {x: 1; y: 2; z: 1}
or some magic function like writeln:
rec := TMyRec(x: 1; y: 2; z: 1)
rec := @(x: 1; y: 2; z: 1)
etc…
or use like dynamic array constructor:
(MyArr := TMyDynArrType.Cre
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
> wrote:
>
> No, I mean
>
> rec := (x + y) * 2;
>
> The compiler has to differentiate these two.
I see. It’s the parenthesis that are problematic. I guess the solution would be
curly brackets:
rec := {x: 1; y: 2; z: 1}
or some magic
On 28.04.2017 08:01, Ryan Joseph wrote:
>
>> On Apr 28, 2017, at 12:43 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
>> wrote:
>>
>> It would introduce an ambiguity as "(x" could also complete to other
>> expressions (e.g. "(x + y) * 2" or even merely "(x)"). Especially older
>> Pascal compilers were geared t
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 12:43 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
> wrote:
>
> It would introduce an ambiguity as "(x" could also complete to other
> expressions (e.g. "(x + y) * 2" or even merely "(x)"). Especially older
> Pascal compilers were geared towards the simplicity of the language and thus
Am 28.04.2017 06:06 schrieb "Ryan Joseph" :
>
> Instead of making constructors and doing busy work It would be nice if
Free Pascal could let you assign records outside of type blocks like:
>
> rec := (x: 0; y: 0; z: 0);
>
> Why isn’t this possible btw? I saw some C++ code do this and it seems
like
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 12:21 PM, LacaK wrote:
>
> you can workaround this by using typed constant for instance. Something like:
>
> const
> DEFAULT_REC: TMyRec = (x: 0; y: 0; z: 0 );
> var
> rec: TMyRec;
> begin
> rec := DEFAULT_REC; // or rec := Default(TMyRec) if you want zeroes
> ...
>
>
Instead of making constructors and doing busy work It would be nice if Free
Pascal could let you assign records outside of type blocks like:
rec := (x: 0; y: 0; z: 0);
you can workaround this by using typed constant for instance. Something
like:
const
DEFAULT_REC: TMyRec = (x: 0; y: 0; z:
Instead of making constructors and doing busy work It would be nice if Free
Pascal could let you assign records outside of type blocks like:
rec := (x: 0; y: 0; z: 0);
Why isn’t this possible btw? I saw some C++ code do this and it seems like an
obvious solution that should have existed 20 year
18 matches
Mail list logo
