listmember wrote: > Florian Klaempfl wrote: > >> 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? > > > I am not sure it is one of those things that need not work.
What would be the gain? > > You could look at it from a different perspective: It does not > add any ambiguity to anything at all. Why then disallow it. See my reasons I gave earlier in this thread but there is no reason to allow it. > > I mean, is there really a difference between this: > > type > pMyRec = ^tMyRec; > > type > tMyRec = Record > data:pointer; > next:pMyRec; > end; > > and this: > > type > pMyRec = ^tMyRec; > > tMyRec = Record > data:pointer; > next:pMyRec; > end; > > especially since there isn't a different kind of declaration > between the first 'type' and the second --and even if there were. > >> It makes > >> - reading the code harder >> - work for the compiler harder => slower and more error prone compiler > > > Interesting... this little bit of flexiblity would make > life that hard for the compiler? Well, don't forget that adding more flexibility could also be abused, if you example worked, why shouldn't type pMyRec = ^tMyRec; var i :longint; type tMyRec = Record data:pointer; next:pMyRec; end; work. There is simply a limit in flexibility where it gives no extra gain anymore. > > So, these 2 different forms are theated differently by the > compiler too? > > This: > > const SOME_NUMBER1 = 1; > const SOME_NUMBER2 = 2; > const SOME_NUMBER3 = 3; > const SOME_NUMBER4 = 4; > > and this: > > const > SOME_NUMBER1 = 1; > SOME_NUMBER2 = 2; > SOME_NUMBER3 = 3; > SOME_NUMBER4 = 4; Internally of course, the second is compiled faster, you won't notice it though in this example ;) _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
