On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Anton Tichawa wrote:
> Marc Weustink wrote: > > > Bram Kuijvenhoven wrote: > > > > > Micha Nelissen wrote: > > > > > > > Bram Kuijvenhoven wrote: > > > > > > > > > Florian Klaempfl wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > - we'll use a syntax as close as possible to Chrome, e.g. > > > > > > type > > > > > > TList<T> = class > > > > > > ... > > > > > > end; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I greatly favor this syntaxis above the generic-modifier. It > > > > > will look at a lot more familiar to most programmers (due to > > > > > e.g. C++ and Java), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Must look familiar" programmers should be fired. > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course, the implementation of generics in Pascal should not depend > > > solely on how it is implemented in other languages. I should in the > > > first place fit into Pascal. > > > > > > Since it is already decided that it would be <> I didn't mix into the > > discussion anymore. However, I'll make a comment on this. > > > > > Does <> for generics fit into Pascal? Well, we use [] for array > > > indexing, and () for parameter passing to > > > procedures/functions/methods. So why not use <> for passing > > > parameters to generic types? And, similar to the case of function > > > calls and array indexing, these <> could follow the type identifier > > > directly. > > > > > > Params are passed to a procedure define like > > > > procedure MyProc(param, param, ..) > > > > Arrays are declared like > > > > A: array[0..9] of ... > > > > And generics.... they are soly defined by the fact that a type has <> in > > it. > > > > That is imo inconsequent. > > > > Marc > > > I aggree. Why not use new keywords 'template', 'generic', like the current > 'array' or record'? That would make the code more readable, and remove > ambiguity problems. It won't cost much, compared to the total size of a > template. > > It's also more pascal-like, as opposed to C, where e. g. a pointer is denoted > with '*' and, at the same time, identifies an array etc. > > (sorry if this is out of time or had already been discussed - I just entered > this thread here). Personally, I also think that a keyword is in order, just as for 'Operator'. 'Generic' is the obvious choice. Something like TMyGenericClass = Generic Class (Ancestor,TemplateName) end; etc. the (,,,) syntax is used for interfaces as well, so that isn't too horrible. I think < > is an ugly C++ hack, and I would very much regret seeing the beautyful Object Pascal language butchered by such things. Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
