Jeff Pohlmeyer wrote:
To clarify, you can actually have many additional types between
the pointer type and the record definition, as long as you
don't introduce another section keyword that "turns off"
the current "type" section.
For instance, this will work:
type
pMyRec = ^tMyRec; // forward declaration
MyInt = integer;
MyArray = array[0..255] of char;
{ Hundreds more typedef's could go here }
tMyRec = Record // actual definition
data:pointer;
next:pMyRec;
end;
But the next example will NOT work, because the
additional "type" keyword separates the two types:
type pMyRec = ^tMyRec;
type tMyRec = Record
data:pointer;
next:pMyRec;
end;
I can see what you mean, but I fail see the wisdom
behind the restriction.
Why should it matter if we used 2 'type' keywords
instead of one --we are, after all, in the same
declaration sestion of the same unit... Why should
it matter?
Cheers,
Ray
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
