On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal <fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org> wrote: > R0b0t1 <r03...@gmail.com> schrieb am Mi., 18. Juli 2018, 21:46: >> >> On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Ryan Joseph <r...@thealchemistguild.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> On Jul 18, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal >> >> <fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> And to give you a slightly different example: around a year ago or so I >> >> implemented a IfThen() intrinsic that works like the if-statement, but as >> >> an >> >> expression (like C's trinary ?: operator including not evaluating the >> >> branch >> >> not taken). The majority of the users seemed to like it, but reasons >> >> against >> >> it surfaced and so I reverted it again. >> >> >> > >> > That’s pretty disheartening honestly. So there was a useful feature >> > users could be leveraging but it was turned down because it didn’t fit into >> > some paradigm or something like that. Sorry to hear that. >> > >> > Since I’ve been using FPC in 2003-2004 the language has never forced any >> > of its new features on me and I can still program Pascal like I did when I >> > started in the 90’s. Forcing me to use features is where my line is crossed >> > but I struggle to understand why we’re withholding good ideas from users to >> > this extent. >> > >> >> You can make the function yourself. > > > You can't, because the main point of the intrinsic was that the parameter > that was in the branch not taken was not evaluated at all just like with the > if-statement. Normal function calls will always evaluate the parameters. >
I understand, but you can get close. That is why I mentioned type safety. Ignoring those things seems kind of anti-Pascal way. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
