Sven Barth wrote:
On 25.01.2013 21:10, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Something like
>>>> for a in a index i do
falls squarely into the latter category: it's messy to parse, worse to
read, and is completely unlike any existing language idioms.
I definitely have to disagree here (while still not having an opinion on
the topic "for-in-index" itself): once you've worked on Delphi style
generics you know what messy parsing is... and I already get nightmares
thinking about what I still need to add for Delphi's generics support...
This for-in-index is a peace of cake to parse in comparison.
I wasn't trying to say that it was easy so much as it would have been
worse if it weren't for the unambiguous delimiters.
In fact I bet that with what you know now you'd be able to move generic
support into a run-time library loaded when the <> idiom was recognised.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
