2 ms·

Yes I know these workarounds but I don't think they are better than typedefs. Instead I simply want the obvious and readable thing that doesn't try to hide what

Yes I know these workarounds but I don't think they are better than typedefs. Instead I simply want the obvious and readable thing that doesn't try to hide what happens and that doesn't require extra keyboard typing.

clouddrover 8y ago
> I don't think they are better than typedefs Why? Passing a record by reference looks like this: procedure SomeProc(var AMyRec : TMyRecord); Passing an object reference looks like this: procedure SomeProc(const AMyObj : TMyObject); I don't see that these are somehow onerous or hiding anything.
- jstimpfle 8y ago
  Sure. When used they look like normal variables. And when you set them it looks like setting a local variable. This is hiding that what really happens is it's writing through a pointer. And it's modifying the caller's state. Add to that the unfounded non-orthogonality (like in C++, references are technically the same as pointers, but not syntactically, and not in the type system, leading to combinatorial explosion. And of course the bloated standard library is proof). Furthermore this approach doesn't work for pointers that point to arrays. Again, Delphi has its own zoo of workarounds that OOP enthusiast will think are so much better -- from dynamic arrays (really weird interactions with reallocations combined with "var" modifier or not), to ObjectLists (not typed) to a version of generics (has its own technical problems). But what I want is the simple and obvious thing (pointer parameters without typedefs) and there's no good reason why we shouldn't have it.
  - clouddrover 8y ago
    > This is hiding that what really happens There is no ambiguity and nothing is hidden. Both examples are passing a reference to the procedure and all Pascal programmers will know what it means. I think your argument boils down to a lack of experience with Pascal (which is fine). But these things you think are problems simply aren't.

clouddrover 8y ago

> I don't think they are better than typedefs Why? Passing a record by reference looks like this: procedure SomeProc(var AMyRec : TMyRecord); Passing an object reference looks like this: procedure SomeProc(const AMyObj : TMyObject); I don't see that these are somehow onerous or hiding anything.

jstimpfle 8y ago
Sure. When used they look like normal variables. And when you set them it looks like setting a local variable. This is hiding that what really happens is it's writing through a pointer. And it's modifying the caller's state. Add to that the unfounded non-orthogonality (like in C++, references are technically the same as pointers, but not syntactically, and not in the type system, leading to combinatorial explosion. And of course the bloated standard library is proof). Furthermore this approach doesn't work for pointers that point to arrays. Again, Delphi has its own zoo of workarounds that OOP enthusiast will think are so much better -- from dynamic arrays (really weird interactions with reallocations combined with "var" modifier or not), to ObjectLists (not typed) to a version of generics (has its own technical problems). But what I want is the simple and obvious thing (pointer parameters without typedefs) and there's no good reason why we shouldn't have it.
- clouddrover 8y ago
  > This is hiding that what really happens There is no ambiguity and nothing is hidden. Both examples are passing a reference to the procedure and all Pascal programmers will know what it means. I think your argument boils down to a lack of experience with Pascal (which is fine). But these things you think are problems simply aren't.