> AFAIK default parameters can only be simple types, not complex types
> like records.
Well... it certainly appears to be so...
> Although, I did get the following program using a default
> class parameter to compile and run.
Kinda defeats the purpose (low overhead). I'll stick with two simple params
with
defaults. (The other way would be to write more overloaded functions, but
that's cumbersome, and has overhead of its own)
You know, it's just occurring to me that I wouldn't be saving anything anyway:
any parameter with a default value must be passed-by-value, not by reference.
So I'm passing two longints either way. Whether they're adjacent doesn't really
make any difference at all.
> (And I thought you could not have var default parameters).
You can't. Here is a much shorter example:
{$mode objfpc}
procedure s (var a : longint = 0);
begin
inc (a);
end;
begin
s; // Error: Variable identifier expected
end.
Perhaps it's a compiler bug that it doesn't complain about the indication of a
var default parameter; however it definitely complains when you actually try to
put that default parameter to use. I guess the default parameter part in the
function header is simply being ignored.
Thanks for your input, though! I've got a more definitive answer now.
Although I still continue to wonder about constant records and record default
params, even if they can't pass-by-ref.
~David.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
