[fpc-pascal] Question about interfaces
F.Klaempfl at gmx.de
Sun Mar 20 12:33:49 CET 2005
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, ml wrote:
>>On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 02:55 +0200, Nikolay Nikolov wrote:
>>>>Other possibilities like ['?','%','$','|','&','::','^'] were only named
>>>>under btw. (and how can btw. under question 2 become the main flaming
>>>>topic is out of my reason, maybe its time to my annual lobotomy)
>>>Well, mentioning C-isms in a pascal forum may sometimes lead to flames
>>>:) (Yes, it was a c-ism, for example operator '::' exists only in C++.)
>>>And btw some of these characters are already used in fpc. '$' is for hex
>>>values ($deadbeef), '%' - for binary (%101010) and '&' - for octal
>>>(&666). '^' is used for dereferencing pointers (p^.something := 5).
>>:) %$& you're right.
>>But you're wrong for '::' '::' exists in perl too. Other C operator is
>>'|' (again this one exists in perl) which is or in C. But then again
>>someone could say that both are a nice way to express delimiters.
>>I'm not really much of pascal lover, I'm just practical. I just use
>>something when it is clean, logical and usable for the purpose. So if
>>that's the case as you described it (about c flames), then either pascal
>>has no future, or it is very very dark. Because not even one tool is not
>>usable for all purposes.
> This is correct.
> In true Unix philosphy, I also use the tool I think fits the job best.
> This may or may not be Pascal.
> But look at it like this:
> Chess has a set of limited and strict rules which are not subject
> to change. Grand masters think of incredibly complicated and
> sometimes beautiful strategies, but they stay within these limited rules.
> A grand programmer uses the tools he has to make great software.
> As a grand master in chess does not need to change the rules, the
> grand programmer doesn't need to change his tools to make great
> Which doesn't mean he could try, of course...
Indeed, Bobby Fischer tried so :)
More information about the fpc-pascal