Michael Schnell wrote:
We already have the generics can the preprocessor symbols. That leaves
the "for in". The development team has its doubts about the "for in"
construct, but:
* Andreas did it in a reasonably clean way with a lot less hacks and
ugly constructions than Delphi did.
* Th
We already have the generics can the preprocessor symbols. That leaves the
"for in". The development team has its doubts about the "for in"
construct, but:
* Andreas did it in a reasonably clean way with a lot less hacks and
ugly constructions than Delphi did.
* The pressure on us is incr
Delphi supports iterator for the "for in" in different ways:
* Dynamic arrays, static arrays, sets, strings and records have "built-in"
iterators
* For classes and interface it requires a method called "GetEnumerator".
GetEnumerator can return a class, an interface or a record. This class,
in
Ales schrieb:
> David Butler wrote / napísal(a):
>> Actually, Delphi now supports "for-in".
>>
>> It also supports things like nested classes, class helpers, operator
>> overloading and inlining.
> All those features are because of .NET.
>
> FPC supported "proper" operator overloading (not in cla
On 14/06/07, Bram Kuijvenhoven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniël Mantione wrote:
>
> Op Thu, 14 Jun 2007, schreef Florian Klaempfl:
>
>> Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
>>> I like the "for-in" code.
>> Using the default property is clean, using count imo not. Thought I
>> admit I've no idea so far to
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Thu, 14 Jun 2007, schreef Florian Klaempfl:
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
I like the "for-in" code.
Using the default property is clean, using count imo not. Thought I
admit I've no idea so far to do it better.
Well, there already is a ";default;" directive, we could
David Butler wrote / napísal(a):
>
>
> All the same, they are also supported in the Win32 compiler.
What I ment to say is that we're most probably not going to re-do what
we already have done differently before Delphi. eg: I don't see their
OOP "operator overloading" as viable considering we have
On 14/06/07, Ales( Katona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Butler wrote / napísal(a):
> Actually, Delphi now supports "for-in".
>
> It also supports things like nested classes, class helpers, operator
> overloading and inlining.
All those features are because of .NET.
All the same, they are
David Butler wrote / napísal(a):
> Actually, Delphi now supports "for-in".
>
> It also supports things like nested classes, class helpers, operator
> overloading and inlining.
All those features are because of .NET.
FPC supported "proper" operator overloading (not in classes only) and
inlining fo
Op Thu, 14 Jun 2007, schreef Florian Klaempfl:
> Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I found this website containing language extension that Andreas
> > Hausladen wrote for Delphi.
> >
> > Is there possibly something we can use in Free Pascal? Sorry, I'm not
> > sure what license Andre
Actually, Delphi now supports "for-in".
It also supports things like nested classes, class helpers, operator
overloading and inlining.
See:
http://dn.codegear.com/article/34324
On 14/06/07, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> I found this websit
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
> Hi,
>
> I found this website containing language extension that Andreas
> Hausladen wrote for Delphi.
>
> Is there possibly something we can use in Free Pascal? Sorry, I'm not
> sure what license Andreas used.
>
> http://andy.jgknet.de/dlang/
I like the idea of mak
Vinzent Hoefler schrieb:
> On Thursday 14 June 2007 06:42, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>
>> Why do you need a plug in mechanism? You've the sources? When you
>> have the sources, 90 per cent of the use of a plugin are gone.
>
> Well, we'd call that non-intrusive change. ;)
>
> You'd just need to com
On Thursday 14 June 2007 06:42, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> Why do you need a plug in mechanism? You've the sources? When you
> have the sources, 90 per cent of the use of a plugin are gone.
Well, we'd call that non-intrusive change. ;)
You'd just need to compile the plug-in, and not a changed com
Op Thu, 14 Jun 2007, schreef Graeme Geldenhuys:
> On 13/06/07, Daniël Mantione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Andreas uses a preprocessor to convert the language extensions into
> > Delphi
> > compatible code. This is a remarkable achievement, but I don't see much
> > value for this approac
On 13/06/07, Daniël Mantione <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andreas uses a preprocessor to convert the language extensions into Delphi
compatible code. This is a remarkable achievement, but I don't see much
value for this approach for Free Pascal; since we have the source code, we
could implement th
Neil Graham schrieb:
> Daniël Mantione wrote:
>> Andreas uses a preprocessor to convert the language extensions into
>> Delphi compatible code. This is a remarkable achievement, but I don't
>> see much value for this approach for Free Pascal; since we have the
>> source code, we could implement the
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Andreas uses a preprocessor to convert the language extensions into Delphi
compatible code. This is a remarkable achievement, but I don't see much
value for this approach for Free Pascal; since we have the source code, we
could implement the features directly.
I think
Op Wed, 13 Jun 2007, schreef Graeme Geldenhuys:
> Hi,
>
> I found this website containing language extension that Andreas
> Hausladen wrote for Delphi.
>
> Is there possibly something we can use in Free Pascal? Sorry, I'm not
> sure what license Andreas used.
>
> http://andy.jgknet.de/dlang/
Hi,
I found this website containing language extension that Andreas
Hausladen wrote for Delphi.
Is there possibly something we can use in Free Pascal? Sorry, I'm not
sure what license Andreas used.
http://andy.jgknet.de/dlang/
I like the "for-in" code.
Regards,
- Graeme -
__
20 matches
Mail list logo
