listmember wrote:
> 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?
type starts a new section without this restriction you could say why
doesn't work:
type
precord = ^trecord
var
r : trecord;
type
trecord = record
end;
It's simply the philosophy of pascal: things which need not to work
don't work. The extra type gives no gain, so why should be allowed? It
makes
- reading the code harder
- work for the compiler harder => slower and more error prone compiler
>
> Cheers,
> Ray
>
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
