On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 05:36, Hans-Peter Diettrich <drdiettri...@aol.com> wrote: > Alexander Klenin schrieb: > There exist too many options with string comparison. In a table lookup > the compare method can be supplied by the application, in a case > statement this would require another syntax extension.
There are also many ways to implement strings and dynamic arrays -- but this did not stopped Object Pascal author from adding them, and I think he was right, even if some of his design decisions are suboptimal. This "consider all roads then choose none" approach will, obviously, never allow you to get anywhere ;-) > Many Delphi extensions to the Pascal language break fundamental design > rules. It's bad enough that FPC (and Lazarus) has to support such > aberrations for compatibility reasons, I agree that some extensions were suboptimally designed, in particular dynamic arrays, but "aberrations"? Can you give an example? > but further extensions should be added very carefully, Yes, but still they should be added -- that was my point. > taking into account the design and experiences > with the successor languages (Modula, Oberon...). While I deeply respect Wirth's contributions to programming language design, I think Modula and especially Oberon are not the best sources for inspiration. Object Pascal has log ago taken different direction -- for example, if we "take into account" Oberon, then we should, as a first step, remove strings, classes, virtual functions and "for" loop. I do not think this is a good way to evolve FPC ;-) -- Alexander S. Klenin _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lazarus.freepascal.org http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus