[fpc-pascal] Re: Delphi's anonymous functions in Free Pascal
Jorge Aldo G. de F. Junior
jagfj80 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 30 18:39:45 CEST 2012
I still fail to see where annonymous functions could succeed where
functional types (part of pascal since last millenia) wouldnt...
2012/8/30 Ralf A. Quint <FreeDOS at gmx.net>:
> At 01:18 AM 8/30/2012, Arioch wrote:
>> 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,
>> also is twice lazy.
>> since one should name every part of design one should type like
>> SomeEnumSemanticName = 0..10;
>> SomeEnumMapSemanticName = array[SomeEnumSemanticName] of integer;
>> var x: SomeEnumMapSemanticName;
>> That has a point, for self-documenting if nothing else. But i don't
>> it is practically that pervasive as your stated maxima would assume.
> Sorry, but that example of yours is silly at best. Someone who has learned
> to program in Pascal should be able write clearly understandable programs,
> not obfuscate just for 'the heck of it'.
> But then common sense seems to have turned into a rare commodity these days.
> Pascal has evolved since Wirth's original design back in the 70s, nobody is
> writing serious programs in the original defined language set anymore, I
> dare to day that even ISO Pascal is not all that useful for real life
> programs anymore.
> A lot of extensions, like units or (objects in general) that you mentioned
> have been done in a way that still leave the very basics of Pascal intact.
> But all the fluff that you (and others) are proposing all the time just aim
> at completely change the language for no other than self-serving reasons and
> that's why people rightfully oppose such proposals...
> fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal at lists.freepascal.org
More information about the fpc-pascal