Hi all, I want to clarify what *feature will be optional* and will not break compatibility. I suppose what back compatibility is required for all minor changes. *I was thinking it's always by default :)*
*Michael Van Canneyt*, > FPC is not the playground for every possible idea out there. > If someone wants to implement some weird syntax: please; use FPC to try and test it, create your dissertation, whatnot. May be you understood what I'm from university in wrong way. It does *not*mean what I need to quickly do any changes anywhere. It means what I have resources *(time, motivation, direct support of very good programmer) *to improve good open project. Work will not have any good value for me if results of work will not have any good value for other people. > "For in" is debatable by itself. It is syntactical sugar, it provides nothing that for a:=b to c does not give. > Now you propose to extend this "sugar" syntax with something even more exotic, which I have not even encountered in other languages. 1. Syntax is subject of discussion and can be changed. 2. Freepascal already have for-in syntax sugar. Why not to make it more flexible? Request of this what for-in-index is on fpc wiki. Some other pascal programmers told in this thread what this is good feature. Evolution of other popular programming languages shows what for-in-index loop have real value *(describes by Alexander S. Klenin)*. Implementation of for-in-index will be basad on existing for-in loop. Thus feature will have almost same behavior as for-in loop. All implementation problems described in this thread relate to existing for-in loop. They are not relevant to discussion of for-in-index loop. I understand why you don't want to support bad features. But I don't understand why reasonable extension of existing feature (which will not break compatibility and which exists in other languages) is bad ? :) Best regards, Vasiliy Kevroletin 2013/1/25 Paul Ishenin <i...@kmiac.ru> > 25.01.2013 4:32, Alexander Klenin пишет: > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Jeppe Græsdal Johansen >> <jjoha...@student.aau.dk> wrote: >> >>> >>> I think the idea is good if the feature is implemented as "optional". >>> >>> That way: >>> - If the enumerator class implements a CurrentIndex method then the for >>> loop >>> can have an index variable. >>> - If not then the for loop can only behave as current for in loops. >>> >>> Of course. >> > > Then I also have nothing against this feature. If it is controllable by > enumrator to allow/reject this then it is ok. > > Best regards, > Paul Ishenin > > > ______________________________**_________________ > fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org > http://lists.freepascal.org/**mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel<http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel> >
_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel