Difference between revisions of "Talk:for-in loop"
m (Fixed syntax highlighting) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
== Multiple enumerators for one class == | == Multiple enumerators for one class == | ||
| − | The underlying code causes a memory leak | + | The underlying code causes a memory leak: |
| − | <syntaxhighlight> | + | |
| + | <syntaxhighlight lang=pascal> | ||
function TEnumerableTree.GetReverseEnumerator: TTreeReverseEnumerator; | function TEnumerableTree.GetReverseEnumerator: TTreeReverseEnumerator; | ||
begin | begin | ||
| Line 14: | Line 15: | ||
</syntaxhighlight> | </syntaxhighlight> | ||
| − | object created, but not | + | object created, but not destroyed |
Revision as of 01:20, 16 February 2020
Proposed extensions - Select which enumerator to use
Why so complicated syntax and new keyword using? Why do not just always use syntax like for x in <IEnumeratorExpression> do ...;, as described in Variant3 and Variant4? In this case no need to introduce any FPC-specific operator (or just to describe default enumerator, to make text shorter?..), no need 'enumerator MoveNext' and 'enumerator Current' modifiers, because interface implementation already can be mapped to other methods... --Nashev 18:43, 12 September 2011 (CEST)
Proposed extensions - index
May be more pretty will python or php-like syntax for ch[i] in s do Writeln(i, ': ', ch); (see http://www.php2python.com/wiki/control-structures.foreach/ for reference) --Nashev 18:43, 12 September 2011 (CEST)
Multiple enumerators for one class
The underlying code causes a memory leak:
function TEnumerableTree.GetReverseEnumerator: TTreeReverseEnumerator;
begin
Result:=TTreeReverseEnumerator.Create(Self);
end;
object created, but not destroyed
