Hello,
Exactly, which is why I prefer the idea Borland has gone for. The STL
is not
a good idea.
The behaviour of the d9 iterators appear to me very unspecific. In which
I think this is because the origin of this information is only a blog
entry, no specification...
order does it iterate throu
Matt Emson wrote:
Exactly, which is why I prefer the idea Borland has gone for. The STL is not
a good idea.
Delphi doesn't have a decent containers library. TObjectList is derived
from TList instead as being designed as a wrapper (if Borland had read
the Danny Thorpe's book they would not imp
Matt Emson wrote:
I don't like the very unspecific implementation. In [SNIP, as this is a
matter of opinion, replace this with "other"]
That's what I meant however my keyboard ate it ;)
languages/libraries there are several kinds of iterators, see e.g. the
STL.
Exactly, which is why I prefer the i
> I doubt in D9, since otherwise they would have realised foreach in such
> way.
No, this assertion is wrong. I'm not saying they *will* add the fore
mentioned functionality, but foreach is part of the .Net standard
constructs. C# has it, as does VB.Net. I expect this has come about as a way
of ke
> > And I think generic programming is eons more powerful and useful than this
> > D9 syntactic sugar.
>
> As generics are in a [future?] version of .Net and D9 will implement a *lot*
> of new language features in Win32, generics may happen.
I doubt in D9, since otherwise they would have realised
> And I think generic programming is eons more powerful and useful than this
> D9 syntactic sugar.
As generics are in a [future?] version of .Net and D9 will implement a *lot*
of new language features in Win32, generics may happen.
Matt
___
fpc-pascal
>
> > But is an iterator a language construct in C++ or just a standard STL
> > class implementation ?
>
> The latter. STL is a syntactical nightmare and simply a preprocessor "hack".
Huh? Templates and operator overloading afaik?
I thought is the MI, C++'s own baroque syntax and custom operato
> But is an iterator a language construct in C++ or just a standard STL
> class implementation ?
The latter. STL is a syntactical nightmare and simply a preprocessor "hack".
You could add a similar, external "hack" to FPC with a few months work.
However, what's the point? Look at Digital Mars D.
> I don't like the very unspecific implementation. In [SNIP, as this is a
matter of opinion, replace this with "other"]
> languages/libraries there are several kinds of iterators, see e.g. the
STL.
Exactly, which is why I prefer the idea Borland has gone for. The STL is not
a good idea.
Matt
__
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> Matt Emson wrote:
>
> >>Is it allowed for D9 win32 target?
> >
> >
> > We'll have to wait for BorCon04.
> >
> >
> >>If it is .not only, see the .NET faq item.
> >
> >
> > But it *is* a fairly standard concept (foreach is the widely used
> > keyword.
Matt Emson wrote:
Is it allowed for D9 win32 target?
We'll have to wait for BorCon04.
If it is .not only, see the .NET faq item.
But it *is* a fairly standard concept (foreach is the widely used
keyword..). It *will* arrive in Win32 at some point (if another Win32
version is released) and so why
> > But it *is* a fairly standard concept (foreach is the widely used
> > keyword..)
>
> It appears in automated languages with in language container types.
Off the top of my head - Digital Mars D - fully compilerd native executable.
There are more.
Matt
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Olle Raab wrote:
> 04-08-11 21.08, skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED] följande:
> >
> > But the IEnumerated interface part is really over the top. It requires the
> > compiler to have 'knowledge' of certain complex types, which is a bad
> > thing and totally arbitrary.
>
> > The last
04-08-11 21.08, skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED] följande:
>
> But the IEnumerated interface part is really over the top. It requires the
> compiler to have 'knowledge' of certain complex types, which is a bad
> thing and totally arbitrary.
> The last time they did that was with Variants, which has been a
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Matt Emson wrote:
> > Is it allowed for D9 win32 target?
>
> We'll have to wait for BorCon04.
No it actually says that this will be for Win32 as well.
I see no reason why it would not be.
>
> > If it is .not only, see the .NET faq item.
>
> But it *is* a fairly standard
> We'll have to wait for BorCon04.
>
> > If it is .not only, see the .NET faq item.
>
> But it *is* a fairly standard concept (foreach is the widely used
> keyword..)
It appears in automated languages with in language container types.
How many native code generating compilers do you know with t
> In another article I read on the same subject, this will not be just a
> .net feature. As a matter of fact most of the new constructs in D9 will
> be for win32 as well as .net
catch up time again ;-)
Matt
___
fpc-pascal maillist - [EMAIL PROTECT
> Is it allowed for D9 win32 target?
We'll have to wait for BorCon04.
> If it is .not only, see the .NET faq item.
But it *is* a fairly standard concept (foreach is the widely used
keyword..). It *will* arrive in Win32 at some point (if another Win32
version is released) and so why not get the j
Marco van de Voort wrote:
So when do we get this one then? ;-)
http://homepages.borland.com/dthorpe/blog/delphi/2004_08_01_archive.php#1092
11211041479238
Is it allowed for D9 win32 target?
If it is .not only, see the .NET faq item.
___
fpc-pascal
> So when do we get this one then? ;-)
>
> http://homepages.borland.com/dthorpe/blog/delphi/2004_08_01_archive.php#1092
> 11211041479238
Is it allowed for D9 win32 target?
If it is .not only, see the .NET faq item.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - [EMAIL
20 matches
Mail list logo
