|
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote: >Well, if we're going in that direction anyway: >Why not include all possible assembler instructions then ? > >Let's be serious. You must draw the line somewhere. >I think these instructions are so exotic, they are pollution of the system unit. I agree with Michael. And I think the line is clearly drawn. The FPC
(and more importantly the language syntax itself) design goal, as I
understand it, is to be, as much as possible, platform and architecture
independent and doesn't need to be "polluted" by adding esoteric
functions/(worst yet)operators becuase they are neat on one particular type of
machine and we just program around them everywhere else.
Rather, if your application really needs that function, you have
a number of suggestions on how to implement that within your own
application, so do that, but I don't think the compiler should be expected to do
it for you.
Dave
|
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
