Marc Weustink wrote:
It is bad enough that the second point is already so for interfaces
and even TObject, (a very serious design flaw by Borland) but
extending this even further to include actual language features such
as the for loop is 2 bridges too far
as far as I'm concerned.
Especially when you can have perfectly the same functionality with
iterators.
I can see a use for using iterators in a for loop, however they should
be declared with some keyword.
Something like
type
TListIterator = iterator(TList, init_func, next_func, check_func)
function init_func: Boolean;
function next_func: <element type>
function check_func: Boolean;
end;
begin
for element in list using TListIterator do...
IMO this is more pascal than using some interface or predefined
function names.
+1
"using" seems far better than a "fixed name GetIterator procedure".
IMHO the other option is to implement the feature for ase types (e.g.
enum, array, maybe string) and allow operator overriding for all other
types.
Then you can specify an enum operator for classes, or even for
simple/scalar types like integer, and define your for..in behaviour for
them.
Martin
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
