On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 20:05, Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25/10/2009, Alexander Klenin <kle...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> IMHO, Reset/JumpToBack should not be used inside "for..in" loop -- they are >> analogous to "goto" inside for loop. >> If "for .. in .. index" extension is implemented, it may be used to call > > > As I explained in my previous reply to Paul - I did not expect for-in > to support everything I use with Iterators. I simply wanted to find > out if the for-in implementation is going to clash with my idea of > implementing GetIterator() in RTL's container classes. So far I don't > see any problems, and I can't see why we can't implement both. There > are use-cases for both. I see for-in as a "lite" version of Iterator, > but I still have a need for a more "full" implementation as well - > supporting a larger method interface.
AFAIU, the whole point of the previous discussion is that you do not have to implement "GetIterator" separately from "GetEnumerator" -- you can have the same class filling both roles. -- Alexander S. Klenin _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
