В письме от Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:50:50 +0400, Andreas Schneider
сообщал:
Can FPC have default class properties in Delphi mode or even ObjFpc mode?
i probably won't really do it, for my major concern is still Delphi, and
that makes a special note that "defaul" and "class" are mutually exclus
> Regarding this: I wish to stress that my views on lambdas or closures are
my own;
For what i understand, those are different things.
Lambdas are runtime code generators and are out of question for natively
compiled language.
Closures are not.
Maybe that is nitpicking today, since the names seems
Pascal never was a toy language. It always have too much required
naming-and-declarations/boilerplate/obstacles/you-name-it
Basic, Logo - let them be. But not the Pascal.
It was educational language but it was damn serious educational language.
However i believe that your "but pointer math" is
>> "var x: array[0..10] of integer; " also is twice lazy.
>> type
>> SomeEnumSemanticName = 0..10;
>> SomeEnumMapSemanticName = array[SomeEnumSemanticName] of integer;
>> var x: SomeEnumMapSemanticName;
> Except that not defining a distinct type emphasises that the array is
> only bein
> If the new features conform to the readability
That heavily depends upon which patterns are known to reader.
We all are patterns recognizers.
And today world is very different.
In my example sketch, the calling like "Data.Filter( _.TotalSale > 20 )" is
concise and easy to understand.
Okay, gi
tcoq wrote
>
> a laziness to software design: what you can't name you actually don't
> design...
>
Guess you meant "don't want to" instead of "can't"
And You mean all the non-named arrays, don't you.
"var x: array[0..10] of integer; " is not only violating Pascal Report, but
also is twice lazy
Sven Barth-2 wrote
>
> Am 29.08.2012 22:56 schrieb "Arioch" <AriochThe@>:
> I don't know whether you tested recent versions of FPC, but since 2.6.0
> the
> support for Delphi compatible generics improved, though generic
> functions/methods and constrain
Ralf A. Quint wrote
>
> At 12:09 AM 8/30/2012, michael.vancanneyt@ wrote:
>>They are IMHO a negation of what pascal stands for. If your programming
> +1
>
Well, the same should be told about everything modern pascal is.
Open and dynamic arrays, pointer math, objects, generics, even units.
It w
> I'm curious: where do you get this 1948 date from? I'm not even sure
> that assemblers (as we know them) existed in 1949...
> Mark Morgan Lloyd
Damn! you're definitely right.
At vwery very least Pascal could not be before Algol-68, which could not be
before... ahem.
But now I wonder myself
Florian Klämpfl wrote
>
>
>>> This is the prototypical way to run a function over each element in a
>>> collection, returning the results.
>> (map (lambda (x) (+ x 1)) '(1 2 3))
>> -> (2 3 4)
>
> I still don't see why this cannot be done by procedure variables: one
> can easily pass a procedure
10 matches
Mail list logo
