Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
At least one of the reasons we never did implement for-in is the absolutely
horrible and totally wrong idea to use classes/interfaces for this, to
which
I seriously objected.
Reading this I conclude you are against 'for-in' implementation in fpc.
I can understand
for y in enumerated do
or
For y in set do
or
For Y in range do
Because this seems a natural extension of loops to enumerates (and even
then) But not ever the class-based one.
So you are not against it but you want to allow them only for the base
types?
I hope you understand that ppl will use them for classes anyway?
var
P: Pointer;
begin
for P in GetComponents(Component) do
TComponent(P).DoSomething;
end;
And what is so special in the class type?
Best regards,
Paul Ishenin.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
