Am Tuesday 22 November 2011 12:14:54 schrieb michael.vancann...@wisa.be: > On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Rainer Stratmann wrote: > > Am Tuesday 22 November 2011 12:05:07 schrieb michael.vancann...@wisa.be: > >> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011, Sven Barth wrote: > >>> Am 22.11.2011 10:13, schrieb michael.vancann...@wisa.be: > >>>>>> If we choose to implement such a function, yes. My response was > >>>>>> based on the compiler as it is. > >>>>> > >>>>> Seems like I'm not the only one that likes to have such a function. > >>>>> Though I would extend it to convert identifiers in scope to strings > >>>>> (such as functions names etc.) > >>>> > >>>> But what is the use ? As far as I can see, it forces you to type more. > >>>> > >>>> Typing > >>>> > >>>> VarName:=nameofvar( counter ); > >>>> > >>>> is more work than > >>>> > >>>> VarName:='counter'; > >>>> > >>>> So what's the point ? > >>> > >>> The best argument for such a feature is that the name is checked by the > >>> compiler. If I change the declaration of the variable the compiler will > >>> complain in the first case, but not in the second (let's assume that we > >>> don't need to care about some kind of backwards compatibilty, just > >>> because we wrote the identifiers to a file in different versions of the > >>> application were the variable had different names). > >> > >> I beg you.... That's the most weak argument I've ever heard. > >> > >> The name of a variable is only used for debugging, and then you can just > >> as well use the debug info. And the change of a name is usually done > >> with search&replace, option whole word, so the text 'counter' should get > >> changed as well. > >> > >> The name of a variable is of absolutely no use to the end user. > > > > No that's not correct. > > That is in my eyes an excuse not to deal with it. > > That depends entirely on the cost of this function. For example the use > Graeme wants is not possible without adding a complete run-time environment > a la .NET. > > > The search&replace function in lazarus is not the best. > > I often change the name in the declaration and then see what the compiler > > says. The compiler does not complain with the text 'counter'. So then you > > may feel 'secure' but it is not. > > Once more: the name in the debug message is totally irrelevant. > I would fire anyone RELYING on that. Are you sure that you are objective in this diskussion? > And since that's all you want the function > for, I consider the use totally marginal... > > Michael. > _______________________________________________ > fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org > http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal