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
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
> 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:
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
