2016-02-02 13:12 GMT+01:00 Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org>:
> "iif(a,b,c) > is fundamentally different in behaviour from > functionxyy(a,b,c)" > > simply laughable in my eyes, because likely 99,99% of programmers won't > know the > difference. As Graeme said: 'I guess I was just lucky it never happened to > me'. > That sums it up. > > I'm just trying to to put any foaming-at-the-mouth argumentation using > this particular argument in perspective. > > For a correct understanding: The compiler must behave predictable at all > times, no arguing there. But I don't think that iif() having different > semantics than all other functions, is a problem. It just needs to be > documented properly. It is a non-issue for me. > > To give more perspective: > The same is true for Writeln() and Assert(), which also have are different > semantics, but this difference is simply documented (if at all). > I didn't hear anyone protesting that. The fact that it is so in the pascal > standard doesn't make a iota of difference; the standard was most likely > simply made after the facts. +1 well said. profit of different behavior for iif is huge: x := iif(obj = nil, 0, obj.foo); and as was stated many times, this behavior iif is *compatible with existing Oxygene* (!). Finally some compatible part. maybe is worth to implement additional IfThen intrinsic (just generic version of regular method from Math/StrUtils.IfThen) -- Best regards, Maciej Izak
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
