[fpc-devel] type discussion
JeLlyFish.software at gmx.net
Thu Jun 2 17:28:38 CEST 2005
On Thursday 02 June 2005 15:16, Uberto Barbini wrote:
> If the goal is this, I'd prefear a way to declare objects
> strlist: TStringList;
> //some stuff
> It could be a problem to pass parameters to the constructor.
Yes, exactly. So why bother the extra complexity? You still need the
"real thing", so for consistency it's better to stay with it only.
Something like this you can see in Java: In the constructor of a derived
class you always need to call the constructor of the base class in the
first place. So, to "simplify" the task, the compiler does the magic
for you, if there is a "default" constructor that has no parameters.
Great. But the virtually same code just does not compile when there is
no such thing as a parameterless constructor and you keep asking you
why it does not f***ing compile. Until you read the 500 pages of the
JLS and then *know* that the compiler does stupidly magic tricks for
you. It can even become much more confusing if you have more than a
I don't think, this makes anything easier, less error-prone, whatever.
It just confuses people.
public key: http://www.t-domaingrabbing.ch/publickey.asc
More information about the fpc-devel