On Monday 12 June 2017 22:13:32 Sieghard wrote: > Hallo Martin, > > [functions & procedures] > > > "function" in C always has a type identifier. As you write, a > > mathematical function returns something. So "procedure" like in Wirth's > > Modula2. > > Or so. In any case, you lose the ability to immediately recognize whether > such a thing can be used in an expression (returning a value) or has to be > used standing alone (classical Pascal "PROCEDURE").
IIRC you proposed to use "function" for both? Sometimes I have the impression you are against anything. > Yes, that _is_ ugly. But it is never needed within the context of an > object, it is _only_ used (needed) for the declaration of a type referring > to an object method. You could just as well specify the containing object > type as a qualifier, like this: > > SomeObjectMethod = SomeObject.procedure (a, b: int32); > > or, like your example, which defines the type only implicitely: > > ObjectMethodVariable: SomeObject.procedure (a, b: int32); > > if it refers to a method of a different object type, or just omit the > qualifier if it refers to the currently defined object type. I think this > should be unmistakable. > I probably understand wrong, but do "SomeObjectMethod" and "SomeMethodVariable" work with "SomeObject" only? That's not how Delphi and MSElang method variables work. > [WITH] > > > MSElang provides a safe "with" statement with mandatory local qualifier. > > Something like the "Modula" version? > I.e. effectively variable (object) renaming, without opening a new scope? Yes. > I definitely dislike this kind. This aliasing makes reading the code much > more difficult than the Pascal version of "WITH". Maybe MSElang will support this version too, not yet decided. > The Modula variant might reduce typing a bit, because the alias names can > be shorter, but it still requires explicit qualification of each > identifier, whereas the Pascal variant, while still stating each referred > object instance, completely does away with qualification where the > reference is unique and still allows for explicit resolution if conflicts > can occur. > You probably know what the problem with the Pascal variant is, don't you?. IIRC you even wrote about it: " > Alternatively, you might consider to do > away with "WITH", as some even say they consider it harmful. " The problem is that if there are members added to the referenced "with" container they override elements with the same name and type in existing code. > > [...] > > > > > > It has the advantage that procedure and method names are aligned. > > > > More > > > > > > That _might_ be a disadvantage at times, as it might make reading the > > > source text more difficult. > > > > Please explain. > > Citing you in "<201706101259.59446.mse00...@gmail.com>": > > " > > proc test1(a: int32): flo64; > > proc test2(const a: string8); > > meth objty.test3(a: int32): flo64; > > meth objty.test4(const a: string8); > > meth ctest.test3(a: int32): flo64; > > meth ctest.test4(const a: string8); > > " > > It has the advantage that procedure and method names are aligned. More > > experiments are needed. > > It looks ugly. > " > You said. > That's not "it might make reading the source text more difficult". Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ mseide-msegui-talk mailing list mseide-msegui-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mseide-msegui-talk
