On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 13:39, Jonas Maebe <jonas.ma...@elis.ugent.be>wrote:
> > On 29 Apr 2010, at 12:00, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > > Michael Van Canneyt het geskryf: >> >>> Consider the following - what you propose - statements: >>> >>> >>> Var >>> A : Integer; >>> deprecated : Boolean; >>> >>> The compiler cannot decide whether the 'deprecated' is a modifier or the >>> >> >> Yes it can, because in your example 'deprecated' is followed by a colon >> and >> a type. >> >> Var >> A : Integer; deprecated; >> >> This is *not* ambiguous at all, >> > > It is ambiguous to the compiler, as is explained in one of the links I > posted previously: > http://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_2.4.0#Order_of_field_and_method.2Fproperty_declarations > > "The above code was ambiguous to the compiler, because when it finished > parsing the property, it could not decide based on seeing the default token > whether this meant that the property was a default property, or whether a > field coming after the property was called "default". It did find this out > after it had parsed the default token (because the next token was a ":" > rather than a ";"), but by then it was too late." > > The compiler uses only a single lookahead token, while disambiguating your > example would require two. > I probably missing something here but how does the compiler knows about override, cdecl etc... directives in one pass ? > > > Jonas > > > _______________________________________________ > fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org > http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal > Ido
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
