>>> Meh. Even good old Turbo Pascal had function pointers.
>>
>> O RLY?
>>
>> Because, I was actually *looking* for that feature, and couldn't find
>> it. It would have been quite helpful...
>
> Might depend on the version; I know it was there in 6.0,

I only used 5.5

> because that's
> the one I used when I invented polymorphism (without the use of the OOP
> language extensions; I didn't have the faintest idea what OOP was all
> about, let alone that I was already using one of its core concepts).

Yeah, that's what I was trying to do too. ;-)

I love how 5.5 added "OOP", which consisted of letting you use the 
keyword "class" instead of "record", and letting you write your function 
code inside a class instead of outside it. I spent ages trying to figure 
out what advantage that gives you. And of course... IT DOESN'T. It's no 
different. In particular, IT'S NOT OOP.

It would have /actually/ been OO if it had let you make fields private, 
or if it supported dynamic binding. But noooo... :-P

Post a reply to this message