As far as voting goes, personally, I prefer something like this: GList =
generic class(T)
And, are we going to have non-class rotines, such as event declarations; i.e.
TGenericCallback = generic function(AValue1: TGenericValue; AValue2:
TGenericValue): Integer;
TSomeGenericEvent = generic
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Ok, to prove this, I've added some ugly examples posted on IRC in the
wiki. Look at the bottom of generic keyword syntax examples.
Anyone an idea ? :-)
Ok I've posted under "Suggestion 2" a slightly modified syntax. Let me
know what you think.
Micha
_
> >
> > Pro <> reason will probably be: "compatibility".
> > Pro "generic" will probably be: more Pascal-alike/readability.
> >
> Delphi.Net2.0 is using <>
> Chrome is using <>
> C# is using <>
> C/C++ is using <>
>
> Why should FPC use "generics" ???
Why not if it is better readable and in the p
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Come on, we're just discussing pros
and cons, who knows what the final syntax will be?
Ok, to prove this, I've added some ugly examples posted on IRC in the
wiki. Look at the bottom of generic keyword syntax examples.
Anyone an idea ? :-)
Micha
___
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:16:46 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Delphi.Net2.0 is using <>
Uncertain.
> Chrome is using <>
Not inventive enough to come up with something of their own and simply
following .NET C# syntax.
> C# is using <>
Duh. It's a C derivative.
> C/C++ is using <>
Duh, they l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Delphi.Net2.0 is using <>
Chrome is using <>
C# is using <>
C/C++ is using <>
Why should FPC use "generics" ???
Why should FPC be Pascal-ish? Is that your question? :-)
mm
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepasc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Delphi.Net2.0 is using <>
Chrome is using <>
C# is using <>
C/C++ is using <>
Why should FPC use "generics" ???
Because it is more readable. < is an operator and therefore should not
be used as bracket in generic definition.
That b.s. will break the Delphi code
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Hi all,
I want to push generics to the next level.
For those not familar, there is already a wiki about this topic:
http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/Generics
I have tried to organize the "usage example" section a bit, I think
most of
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Hi all,
I want to push generics to the next level.
For those not familar, there is already a wiki about this topic:
http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/Generics
I have tried to organize the "usage example" section a bi
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Hi all,
I want to push generics to the next level.
For those not familar, there is already a wiki about this topic:
http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/Generics
I have tried to organize the "usage example" section a bit, I think most
of the "(uncategorized)" item
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >Then they have to publish their specs real soon now. And I mean
> >not
> >something in a blog, but more something like documentation. We
> >can't wait
> >another 5 years, until they finally make up thei
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >Then they have to publish their specs real soon now. And I mean
> >not
> >something in a blog, but more something like documentation. We
> >can't wait
> >another 5 years, until they finally make up thei
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > Why should Borland reinvent the wheel?
> > http://bdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,33383,00.html
>
> That they will not invent new functionality is clear.
> But absolutely nothing is said about pascal _syntax_ for generics.
>
> How this is t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You stated that we could know already what the delphi-syntax will be,
if they add generics over two years.
But we can't, since we don't know what 'pascal-styled' way they will
choose.
I would say that a pascal-way is adding the 'interface' keyword. Like in
array's an
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >Then they have to publish their specs real soon now. And I mean
> >not
> >something in a blog, but more something like documentation. We
> >can't wait
> >another 5 years, until they finally make up thei
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>
> > Why do you think, that Borland will use ECMA Standard 334 for C# for the
> > Delphi generics?
> > Is there any official page, document, statement?
> >
> >
> >
> Why should Borland reinvent the wheel?
> http://bdn.bor
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Why do you think, that Borland will use ECMA Standard 334 for C# for the
Delphi generics?
Is there any official page, document, statement?
Why should Borland reinvent the wheel?
http://bdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,33383,00.html
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:06:10 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[...]
> >>ECMA Standard 334
> >
> >But this is a standard for C#, so totally useless for Pascal syntax-wise.
> >
> Why useless? You can do exactly the same in a Pascal-styled way.
> We need just a minor part from the standard for the FPC
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vincent Snijders wrote:
LOL.
Then they have to publish their specs real soon now. And I mean
not
something in a blog,
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Vincent Snijders wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > LOL.
> > > >
> > > > Then they have to publish their specs real soon now. And I mean
> > > > not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vincent Snijders wrote:
LOL.
Then they have to publish their specs real soon now. And I mean not
something in a blog, but more something like documentation. We can't
wait
another 5 year
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vincent Snijders wrote:
LOL.
Then they have to publish their specs real soon now. And I mean not
something in a blog, but more something like documentation. We can't wait
another 5 years, until they finally make
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Vincent Snijders wrote:
>
> > LOL.
> >
> > Then they have to publish their specs real soon now. And I mean not
> > something in a blog, but more something like documentation. We can't wait
> > another 5 years, until they finally make up their mind.
Vincent Snijders wrote:
LOL.
Then they have to publish their specs real soon now. And I mean not
something in a blog, but more something like documentation. We can't
wait another 5 years, until they finally make up their mind.
Generics are already standardized. According to Borland, the Win
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marco van de Voort wrote:
Delphi incompatibility is a NoGo for FPC.
LOL.
Then they have to publish their specs real soon now. And I mean not
something in a blog, but more something like documentation. We can't
wait another 5 years, until they finally make up thei
Marco van de Voort wrote:
Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is this correct so far?
Ok. So, FPC will follow chrome/Delphi?
Afaik there is no need to. Chrome is as relevant as C++, since it is a
different language, and Delphi implements .NET stuff, and maybe provi
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 04.11.2005, 19:33 +0100 schrieb Peter Vreman:
> At 18:17 4-11-2005, you wrote:
> >This is evaluated by the pre-compiler run during compile time.
> >
> >When you use the template with e.g.
> >var
> >bl: List;
> >
> >then procedure show(s:string) is taken.
> >
>
> But what if th
> Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > I know Chrome is .NET oriented Delphians pet peeve, but compability wise it
> > is irrelevant. It is only interesting for Delphians that really leave
> > delphi(.net) behind, but then C# is a choice as well.
>
> So what you're saying is Chrome is only used by people
Marco van de Voort wrote:
I know Chrome is .NET oriented Delphians pet peeve, but compability wise it
is irrelevant. It is only interesting for Delphians that really leave
delphi(.net) behind, but then C# is a choice as well.
So what you're saying is Chrome is only used by people who hate Borla
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> Later on, the -MDelphi switch can be used to implement
> delphi-compatible parsing. If they do it differently
> from chrome, then we'll implement -MChrome...
I don't see any relation between FPC and Chrome.
Non trivial Chrome code won't ever r
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is this correct so far?
Ok. So, FPC will follow chrome/Delphi?
Afaik there is no need to. Chrome is as relevant as C++, since it is a
different language, and Delphi implements .NET stuff, and maybe
> Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is this correct so far?
>
> Ok. So, FPC will follow chrome/Delphi?
Afaik there is no need to. Chrome is as relevant as C++, since it is a
different language, and Delphi implements .NET stuff, and maybe provides a
backwards compat kludge f
Peter Vreman wrote:
The token-lookahead is a hack and will create more problems and
performance loss in a critical part of the compiler.
The restriction of type blocks only is not strange at all, Delphi allows
'class of' is also only in type blocks
Ok, I didn't know it would be a real ugly hac
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:06:37 +0100
Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ok. So, FPC will follow chrome/Delphi?
I would do so, see my mail from the weekend :)
I see, but also I see all the other posts still discussing the syntax. I
wondered, if it was definitive
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:07:42 +0100
> Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Params are passed to a procedure define like
> >
> >procedure MyProc(param, param, ..)
> >
> > Arrays are declared like
> >
> >A: array[0..9] of ...
> >
>
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 23:06:37 +0100
Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[...]
> > Ok. So, FPC will follow chrome/Delphi?
>
> I would do so, see my mail from the weekend :)
I see, but also I see all the other posts still discussing the syntax. I
wondered, if it was definitive.
Mattias
_
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:07:42 +0100
Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Params are passed to a procedure define like
>
>procedure MyProc(param, param, ..)
>
> Arrays are declared like
>
>A: array[0..9] of ...
>
> And generics they are soly defined by the fact that a type has
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:41:06 +0100
> Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:29:51 +0100
>>>Bram Kuijvenhoven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
Micha Nelissen wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Nov 20
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:41:06 +0100
Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:29:51 +0100
> > Bram Kuijvenhoven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Micha Nelissen wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:45:19 +0100
> >>>Bram Kuijvenhoven <
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:29:51 +0100
> Bram Kuijvenhoven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Micha Nelissen wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:45:19 +0100
>>>Bram Kuijvenhoven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Does <> for generics fit into Pascal? Well, we use [] for array
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Anton Tichawa wrote:
> Marc Weustink wrote:
>
> > Bram Kuijvenhoven wrote:
> >
> > > Micha Nelissen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bram Kuijvenhoven wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > - we'll use a syntax as close as possible to Chrome, e.g.
> >
Marc Weustink wrote:
Bram Kuijvenhoven wrote:
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Bram Kuijvenhoven wrote:
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
- we'll use a syntax as close as possible to Chrome, e.g.
type
TList = class
...
end;
I greatly favor this syntaxis above the generic-modifier. It will
look a
Bram Kuijvenhoven wrote:
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Bram Kuijvenhoven wrote:
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
- we'll use a syntax as close as possible to Chrome, e.g.
type
TList = class
...
end;
I greatly favor this syntaxis above the generic-modifier. It will
look at a lot more familiar to
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:29:51 +0100
Bram Kuijvenhoven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Micha Nelissen wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:45:19 +0100
> > Bram Kuijvenhoven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Does <> for generics fit into Pascal? Well, we use [] for array
> >indexing, and () for parameter pass
Micha Nelissen wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:45:19 +0100
Bram Kuijvenhoven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does <> for generics fit into Pascal? Well, we use [] for array indexing, and () for
parameter passing to procedures/functions/methods. So why not use <> for passing parameters
to generic type
On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:45:19 +0100
Bram Kuijvenhoven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does <> for generics fit into Pascal? Well, we use [] for array indexing, and
> () for parameter passing to procedures/functions/methods. So why not use <>
> for passing parameters to generic types? And, similar to
> Micha Nelissen wrote:
> Consider for example the following: Is Java bad because it looks like C++?
No. But it inherits from C syntax in nearly all forms.
The test is consistency. Java is consistent if it follows C(++) syntax,
(the rest of the language is C(++) like), (free)pascal not,
> Or
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Bram Kuijvenhoven wrote:
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
- we'll use a syntax as close as possible to Chrome, e.g.
type
TList = class
...
end;
I greatly favor this syntaxis above the generic-modifier. It will look
at a lot more familiar to most programmers (due to e.g.
> Peter Vreman wrote:
> TStringMyObjectMap = TMap;
>
> etc.
>
> One more question: If I understand it correctly, the parser uses a
> recursive top-down recursive descent approach and not a bottom-up approach
> like the LALR parsers generated by the pyacc tool?
Correct. Pascal tools usually do.
Peter Vreman wrote:
The token-lookahead is a hack and will create more problems and
performance loss in a critical part of the compiler.
The restriction of type blocks only is not strange at all, Delphi allows
'class of' is also only in type blocks
Ok, I didn't know it would be a real ugly hac
Bram Kuijvenhoven wrote:
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
- we'll use a syntax as close as possible to Chrome, e.g.
type
TList = class
...
end;
I greatly favor this syntaxis above the generic-modifier. It will look
at a lot more familiar to most programmers (due to e.g. C++ and Java),
"Mu
>> - instantiation will be only possible in declaration blocks, not in code
>> blocks:
>> possible:
>> var
>> mylist : TList;
>> const
>> mylist : TList = nil;
>> type
>> mylist = TList;
>> forbidden:
>> procedure p(mylist : TList);
>> begin
>> ...
>> mylist:=TList.create;
>> ...
>> end
Hi! I've been following the generic discussion with great interest. Here are
some of my thoughts.
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
- we'll use a syntax as close as possible to Chrome, e.g.
type
TList = class
...
end;
I greatly favor this syntaxis above the generic-modifier. It will look at a l
What is Chrome? Some examples of Generics:
http://www.remobjects.com/articles/?id={A1D08EE3-0D9E-4828-AFB3-B2C1E772186E}
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
dannym wrote:
> hmm.. a parameter declaration of a function declaration is not a
> declaration block ? I've always thought of them like local variables,
> just happening to be pre-filled..
procedure p(a : array[0..10] of longint);
isn't possible either.
>
> and, will TList and mylist be compati
Hi,
Am Freitag, den 04.11.2005, 20:28 +0100 schrieb Florian Klaempfl:
> I read the disussion above and I'll post my thoughts so far below:
>
> - we'll use a syntax as close as possible to Chrome, e.g.
> type
> TList = class
> ...
> end;
>
> - instantiation will be only possible in declar
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 20:28:15 +0100
Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - instantiation steps which require code generation are done after main
> program compilation based on information saved in the unit files, this
> has some advantages:
If there are errors in some template, won't this
I read the disussion above and I'll post my thoughts so far below:
- we'll use a syntax as close as possible to Chrome, e.g.
type
TList = class
...
end;
- instantiation will be only possible in declaration blocks, not in code
blocks:
possible:
var
mylist : TList;
const
mylist : TList
At 18:17 4-11-2005, you wrote:
This is evaluated by the pre-compiler run during compile time.
When you use the template with e.g.
var
bl: List;
then procedure show(s:string) is taken.
But what if the bl: List is called from an other unit? The
Show(string) is then not visible anymore?
This is evaluated by the pre-compiler run during compile time.
When you use the template with e.g.
var
bl: List;
then procedure show(s:string) is taken.
Peter Vreman wrote:
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
This page looks only like the start of a proposal. Neither complete nor
official.
Why
> Peter Vreman wrote:
>> Expiriment, feed g++ code with errors in the statements. With macro's
>> those errors won't be show until the macro is used. But with templates
>> this is diffent:
>
> Smart indeed :)
>
>> This is more important than the syntactical sugar. The rules where to
>> declare gene
Peter Vreman wrote:
Expiriment, feed g++ code with errors in the statements. With macro's
those errors won't be show until the macro is used. But with templates
this is diffent:
Smart indeed :)
This is more important than the syntactical sugar. The rules where to
declare generics and how/when
On Friday 04 November 2005 10:33, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> On Friday 04 November 2005 09:25, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> > Marc Weustink wrote:
> > > If the generic is "pre"compiled (which is maybe necesary if you
> > > need access to privates) then I fear some runtime logic has to be
> > > added to ca
> Peter Vreman wrote:
>> I did some tests with g++. It looks like it parses the template
>> 'normally'
>> and don't handle it like a macro. When instantiating the template the
>> generic type is replaced.
>
> What tests did you do to come to this conclusion ? I mean, how can one
> see how g++ parse
On Friday 04 November 2005 13:48, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
Stupid KMail. Deleted the text after file's eof.
After the file there was supposed to be a remark about that the example
does not compile as is, because generics in Ada are different from C++
templates, which are merely more like macros,
On Friday 04 November 2005 13:27, Marco van de Voort wrote:
["<>"]
> The evil is in
>
> - using characters instead of modifiers.
> - worse, recycling already used characters.
Alright, I completely understand at least the first part, so perhaps
they should simply not be overused. :-)
Just for th
Peter Vreman wrote:
I did some tests with g++. It looks like it parses the template 'normally'
and don't handle it like a macro. When instantiating the template the
generic type is replaced.
What tests did you do to come to this conclusion ? I mean, how can one
see how g++ parses things ?
f
> Micha Nelissen wrote:
>>
>> type
>> TGenericCollection = generic(T: TCollectionItem) class(TComponent)
>> ...implement TCollection and use T
>> end;
>>
>> TCollection = TGenericCollection of (TCollectionItem);
>> TFieldDefs = TGenericCollection of (TFieldDef);
>>
>
> So generic procs
> types _at least_ in Ada's generics back in 1983[*] already.
> Perhaps someone should take a look at those, because these are also
> quite different from C++-templates.
>
>
> Vinzent.
>
> [*] That would be the same year the term "C++" just appeared first in
> history of programming languages
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 13:44:55 +0100
Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:47:42 +0100
Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Thu, 3 Nov 2005, schreef Mattias Gaertner:
Here is a p
On Friday 04 November 2005 13:00, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> Combining some of the wiki ideas, and has no "evil" <> characters
> :-).
I don't understand the fuzz about using "<>". It's not even close to
being C(++)-ish, because it was used for describing discrete range
types _at least_ in Ada's ge
Micha Nelissen wrote:
type
TGenericCollection = generic(T: TCollectionItem) class(TComponent)
...implement TCollection and use T
end;
TCollection = TGenericCollection of (TCollectionItem);
TFieldDefs = TGenericCollection of (TFieldDef);
So generic procs could look like:
function
Ales Katona wrote:
Example:
procedure MyProc(T); // generic procedure without parameters
ver i: T;
begin
...
end;
procedure MyProc(T: TClass); // non generic procedure
begin
end;
Call
MyProc(TObject);
What will happen?
Mattias
Sky will reign fire:
procedure (var T);
begin
// gener
Ales Katona wrote:
Are the () required? Why not TSomeList = TGenericList of Pointer; ?
I guess, but in general one can use multiple generic types when coding a
class, so this is to point out that it's ordered and defined.
Micha
___
fpc-devel maill
Ales Katona wrote:
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Marc Weustink wrote:
BTW,
what woud be the problem with
type
TMySpecificClass = TGenericClass(TObject, Integer);
Or:
type
TGenericCollection = generic(T: TCollectionItem) class(TComponent)
...implement TCollection and use T
end;
TColl
Example:
procedure MyProc(T); // generic procedure without parameters
ver i: T;
begin
...
end;
procedure MyProc(T: TClass); // non generic procedure
begin
end;
Call
MyProc(TObject);
What will happen?
Mattias
Sky will reign fire:
procedure (var T);
begin
// generic or not??
end;
___
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Marc Weustink wrote:
BTW,
what woud be the problem with
type
TMySpecificClass = TGenericClass(TObject, Integer);
Or:
type
TGenericCollection = generic(T: TCollectionItem) class(TComponent)
...implement TCollection and use T
end;
TCollection = TGenericColl
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 13:44:55 +0100
Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:47:42 +0100
> > Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Daniël Mantione wrote:
> >>
> >>>Op Thu, 3 Nov 2005, schreef Mattias Gaertner:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
Marc Weustink wrote:
BTW,
what woud be the problem with
type
TMySpecificClass = TGenericClass(TObject, Integer);
Or:
type
TGenericCollection = generic(T: TCollectionItem) class(TComponent)
...implement TCollection and use T
end;
TCollection = TGenericCollection of (TCollectionItem
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:47:42 +0100
Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Thu, 3 Nov 2005, schreef Mattias Gaertner:
Here is a proposal of the syntax:
type
TGenericClass = class
public
procedure Add(Item: T; Flag: F);
end;
This sy
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:38:03 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Alexey Barkovoy wrote:
>
> >>> Delphi 11 .Net 2.0 will support Generics. Maybe Delphi 11 Win32.
> >>
> >
> >
> >> This page looks only like the start of a proposal. Neither complete nor
> >> official.
> >> Why do you think, that
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:47:42 +0100
Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniël Mantione wrote:
> >
> > Op Thu, 3 Nov 2005, schreef Mattias Gaertner:
> >
> >
> >>Here is a proposal of the syntax:
> >>
> >>type
> >> TGenericClass = class
> >> public
> >>procedure Add(Item: T; Flag: F)
Marc Weustink wrote:
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Marc Weustink wrote:
case TypeInfo(Data) of
StringType: Show(Data);
IntegerType: Show(Data);
end;
The whole idea of Generics is to avoid this :-)
I mean generated by the compiler, not by the "user"
I understand, but I would be rathe
Daniël Mantione wrote:
>
> Op Thu, 3 Nov 2005, schreef Mattias Gaertner:
>
>
>>Here is a proposal of the syntax:
>>
>>type
>> TGenericClass = class
>> public
>>procedure Add(Item: T; Flag: F);
>> end;
>
>
> This syntax is almost impossible to implement since in one of your other
> mai
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Thu, 3 Nov 2005, schreef Mattias Gaertner:
Here is a proposal of the syntax:
type
TGenericClass = class
public
procedure Add(Item: T; Flag: F);
end;
This syntax is almost impossible to implement since in one of your other
mails the symbols to mark the para
Peter Vreman wrote:
>>Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This page looks only like the start of a proposal. Neither complete nor
>>>official.
>>>Why do you think, that D2006 will have generics?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>D2006 <> D11=D2007
>
>
> How will Delphi handle the following case with overloads and d
On Friday 04 November 2005 09:25, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> Marc Weustink wrote:
>
> > If the generic is "pre"compiled (which is maybe necesary if you
> > need access to privates) then I fear some runtime logic has to be
> > added to call the correct procedure. IE. something like
> >
> > case TypeI
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Marc Weustink wrote:
Peter Vreman wrote:
How will Delphi handle the following case with overloads and
different types:
If the generic is "pre"compiled (which is maybe necesary if you need
access to privates) then I fear some runtime logic has to be added to
call the
Peter Vreman wrote:
How will Delphi handle the following case with overloads and different types:
The restriction to use generic types only in (assignment to)/(passing to
procedure) of the same generic type is too big a restriction ?
If you want to do this, one should instantiate it first ..
Marc Weustink wrote:
Peter Vreman wrote:
How will Delphi handle the following case with overloads and different
types:
If the generic is "pre"compiled (which is maybe necesary if you need
access to privates) then I fear some runtime logic has to be added to
call the correct procedure. IE. s
Peter Vreman wrote:
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
This page looks only like the start of a proposal. Neither complete nor
official.
Why do you think, that D2006 will have generics?
D2006 <> D11=D2007
How will Delphi handle the following case with overloads and different types:
If it is han
> Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>
>>This page looks only like the start of a proposal. Neither complete nor
>>official.
>>Why do you think, that D2006 will have generics?
>>
>>
>>
>
> D2006 <> D11=D2007
How will Delphi handle the following case with overloads and different types:
unit test;
interfac
> Delphi 11 .Net 2.0 will support Generics. Maybe Delphi 11 Win32.
> There is already proposal:
>
>http://qc.borland.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=11168
>
> The FPC syntax must be at least a subset of the Borland syntax to be
> compatible.
Only if they are usuable for FPC. Delphi.NET has .NET 2.0
Alexey Barkovoy wrote:
Delphi 11 .Net 2.0 will support Generics. Maybe Delphi 11 Win32.
This page looks only like the start of a proposal. Neither complete nor
official.
Why do you think, that D2006 will have generics?
Not Delphi 2006, but Delphi 2007
__
Delphi 11 .Net 2.0 will support Generics. Maybe Delphi 11 Win32.
This page looks only like the start of a proposal. Neither complete nor
official.
Why do you think, that D2006 will have generics?
Not Delphi 2006, but Delphi 2007
___
fpc-devel m
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
This page looks only like the start of a proposal. Neither complete nor
official.
Why do you think, that D2006 will have generics?
D2006 <> D11=D2007
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:06:42 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi *,
> Delphi 11 .Net 2.0 will support Generics. Maybe Delphi 11 Win32.
> There is already proposal:
>
>http://qc.borland.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=11168
>
> The FPC syntax must be at least a subset of the Borland syntax to be
> com
Hi *,
Delphi 11 .Net 2.0 will support Generics. Maybe Delphi 11 Win32.
There is already proposal:
http://qc.borland.com/wc/qcmain.aspx?d=11168
The FPC syntax must be at least a subset of the Borland syntax to be
compatible.
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Hi all,
I want to push generics to th
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 22:35:34 +0100
Peter Vreman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 20:41 3-11-2005, you wrote:
> >On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 20:25:07 +0100 (CET)
> >Daniël Mantione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Op Thu, 3 Nov 2005, schreef Mattias Gaertner:
> > >
> > > > Right. I didn't thi
At 20:41 3-11-2005, you wrote:
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 20:25:07 +0100 (CET)
Daniël Mantione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Op Thu, 3 Nov 2005, schreef Mattias Gaertner:
>
> > Right. I didn't think of that.
> >
> > What about edged brackets?
> >
> > type
> > TGenericClass[T,F] = class
> > public
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
