Am Sat, 14 May 2011 17:38:27 +0200 schrieb Florian Klämpfl <flor...@freepascal.org>:
> Am 14.05.2011 17:30, schrieb Joerg Schuelke: > > Am Sat, 14 May 2011 17:04:45 +0200 > > schrieb Joerg Schuelke <joerg.schue...@gmx.de>: > > > >> > >> I repeat, I have really nothing against RTTI, but I state that it > >> comes from a high level language extension. > >> > > By the way this RTTI thing comes from the argument: Do not use a > > macro, instead do it this way. But this forces me to use RTTI, > > which is possibly not what I want. > > Then you should use C ;) RTTI is something which makes life easier and > prevents mistakes. I do not understand this C argument, I swear I am an pascal man! ;( Again, nothing against RTTI, but I do not like to be forced to use it. > > > > > Most of the arguments against macros where of this kind. > > > > You can do it an other way, using ... > > > > But this way I can show you even OOP is useless :) what I do not > > believe. > > True. But the point is: macros are something rendering code easily > unreadable if used wrong ... Yea, thats why the explicit expansion of the macros, even the dumbest can see it is a macro expansion {$expand macro(1,2,3)} the words you suggests. By the way the RTTI approach do not solve the problem, if there is one, we did not see that: enum(en1,en2,en3,...); ... strarr:array[...] of shortstring={ str(en1), str(en2), ... } does only half of the work. You have to keep them in sync furthermore, see the order. Sometimes we shoot a little to quick, so do I, sorry for that. Regards Jörg _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel