[fpc-pascal] "is"

Thomas Schatzl tom_at_work at gmx.at
Fri Apr 8 01:17:53 CEST 2005


Marco van de Voort schrieb:
>>That there are different types of iterators (forward, backward, and 
>>random access, readonly, writeable, ...) is definitely a feature of a 
>>specific iterator imo.
> I'm more thinking on different properties. E.g. on address, on name etc. 

I don't understand that remark right now, but it sounds interesting 
(maybe because it's late). Care to explain that briefly? (Or give a 

> I don't buy that kind of arguments. This is Pascal, not Matlab. You
> need to have a general idea about is what happening, and knowledge about
> typing is a fundament of a strongly typed language.

I don't agree to this argument that this needs to reflect in the syntax 
(your argument is "this is Pascal and that's it"). The type of a 
container is the specification after the double colon, not the loop 
structure/syntax. It does not disallow the traditional way either; all 
components used (container, element) in this syntax are properly typed, 
and it does not weaken typing at all.

> My point was that if you invent syntax, at least make it somewhat general.
> However that is pretty much the point of this extension. A few people knew
> this construct from VB, which has no sane syntax anyway, and complained
> about the two extra keystrokes. It has nothing to do with design or thinking
> about a nice, general solution.


>>*ducks into cover, awaiting flames* =)
> IMHO this time to find arguments to justify something stupid as for..each

You are right in these aspects; I'm not the person who cares much about 
that "foreach" either. That means that I can happily live without it and 
don't care about this syntax which is lacking usefulness, so I accept 
and actually agree to this decision in the end.


More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list