Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
My only worry now is to make sure that if they are implemented, that
we make the design as clean as possible: e.g. No hardcoded
dependencies on class or
interface names.
We need to count the pros and contras first regards hardcoded names and
maybe 'hard coded' code. For example for me the hardcoded 'Result'
identifier for all functions is a big advantage. But you are still using
the function names to set the result values I suppose. So during this
clean design designing we need to find a compromise between 2 approaches.
for example, would you argue if iterator will be any container type:
object/class with the next declaration:
TMyIterator = object
public
function StepNext: Boolean;
property TheCurrentValue: Integer;
iterator MoveNext = StepNext;
iterator Current = TheCurrentValue;
end;
When 'iterator MoveNext' or 'iterator Current' are not defined then
compiler uses default hardcoded identifiers 'MoveNext' and 'Current'.
This is very like to how you can bind interface methods to the class
methods if they are differ.
Best regards,
Paul Ishenin.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
