Agreed ( speaking as the one who instigated the incrementer thing a while back ;) )
I don't mind what it is called, as long as it: 1) allows us to determine whether it has an effect in the final exe or not 2) provides loads of info strings ( the boolean test RB code, class, method, line number ) as to the failure without needing to hard code message text 3) provides a nil object test version as well as boolean test Some of 1) in a little way could be the beginnings of an "aspect oriented" approach. Finally regarding REALC++ - I understand the fears of some that C style syntax creeps into RB, but that should not stop RB from adopting things in C,C++ or other languages that are genuinely useful and if included would attract more programmers to the RB platform. RB adopted operator overloading for example which amongst widely used languages, was for a long while ONLY found in C++, not Java or any flavour of basic. And I'm very glad they did. Likewise for the Ptr keyword. Sure = RB is a reference based language but in the REAL world one very often needs ptrs.. We have to think about whether in the end we want RB to be a "teaching" language for hobbyists or a real world workhorse of a language suitable for professionals and hobbyists alike. On 22/11/06 09:05, "Fargo Holiday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unlike the incrementer argument a little while > back, this would bring a fundamental tool into RB, not just a shortcut, > and seems to fit into the RB mold of rapid development and easily > maintained code. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
