[fpc-devel] Thoughts on being able to declare "pointer-to-type" parameters directly in method signatures?

[Dmitry Boyarintsev]

On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 9:05 PM Ryan Joseph <genericptr at gmail.com> wrote:

> What if static array and record types were the exception?

Avoiding making any exceptions in a design is typically a good thing.


> Personally I’ve had to write dummy types more than once in order to get
> around this design problem. If I had to guess I’d say this is just a
> historical relict the didn’t stand up to the test of time.
>
I'm not so confident about dummy types.
I typically refer to C-based API's. For example WinAPI.
WinAPI is actually providing a pointer-to-type type declaration, for all of
it's type.
Even though they don't really have to do that, as C does allow inline
reference declaration.
I'm wondering what were Microsoft's reasons to introduce a lot of
"historical relic" in their apis

thanks,
Dmitry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-devel/attachments/20190609/7bb66c25/attachment.html>