[fpc-pascal] Generic type declaration example versus manual.
sysrpl at gmail.com
Sun Nov 22 17:26:53 CET 2009
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Marco van de Voort <marcov at stack.nl> wrote:
> Apparantly it didn't sink in:-)
Oh it has sunk in, and I've come to expect it. I was/am only trying to
move the discussion beyond that point (which seems like a brick wall).
IMO a discussion would serve us better than stonewalling.
> Implementing something once or twice.
Okay, but let's take these issues one by one rather than grouping them
together. Is that more reasonable. Blocking off discussion about some
feature after it has been started or implemented seems short sighted.
Sure, you resolve the issue, but it's done by shutting down opinions.
To address this issue directly (which is what I'd prefer to do), is it
really that much trouble to convert the syntax from:
A) generic TStack<T> = class(TObject)
B) TStack<T> = class(TObject)
The work that has been done I am guessing is mostly in the generation
of code templates, rather than the syntax parsing.
Version A repeats redundant information. Of couse TStack<T> is
generic, it has those angle brackets after the identifier. They
wouldn't be legal in a type block unless it was a generic declaration.
Therefore the word generic is redundant.
As I've said before, FPC is going down the route of being incompatible
with Delphi. I think it makes sense to resolve compatibility issues
rather than fight against resolving them.
> Every developer is master of his own time. And it is an hobby for all of us.
> And I don't think i have to explain you that implementing something twice is
> not fun, specially not if your only motivation is avoiding being called
I didn't call anyone childish. I was pointing out that some arguments
are childish. I've taught in elementary school and have had the same
problems with students. "Teacher: Stop acting stupid. Student: Hey,
that's unfair, you just called me stupid. Teacher: No, I said you were
More information about the fpc-pascal