> On Feb 21, 2018, at 3:45 PM, Mattias Gaertner <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> I think this would be confusing:
>
> {$scopedenums on}
> type
> TMyType = (A, B, C);
> {$scopedenums off}
> var
> A: integer;
>
> procedure DoThis (t: TMyType; i: integer);
> begin
> end;
>
> DoThis(A,A);
yes it would be. :) Swift lets you opt out if you want so you can still do
DoThis(TMyType.A, A) in that case but more specifically Swift keeps the .
prefix so it would be DoThis(.A, A). Not always what you want but in some cases
it’s really handy. In many API’s there’s a constant plague of long enum names
all starting with the same prefix so shortening them to the logical suffix when
possible just make sense.
Here’s something that’s all too common in code. There’s obviously some
redundancy here we could optimize out. The only reason we keep the prefix is
for name space integrity but logically in code what I’m really thinking about
is the suffix so it makes sense that if the compiler could infer this it would
save me time.
type
TTileSortingFlag = ( kTileSortingStatic,
kTileSortingRamp,
kTileSortingIgnore,
kTileSortingParticle,
kTileSortingFloor,
kTileSortingFlat,
kTileSortingContainer,
kTileSortingOnRamp,
kTileSortingBufferStatic,
kTileSortingBufferDynamic
);
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
