> > On 17 Dec 2011, at 11:29, Bernd wrote: > >> But I am still surprised that inline can be declared in either of the >> two sections ( I am not complaining, I am actually glad it works for >> my particular application). Is there any recommended style, is it bad >> practice to put it into the implementation? > > Keeping the interface and implementation declarations the same is the best > approach. Inline currently always changes the definition anyway (as far as > the compiler is concerned) because the implementation becomes part of the > definition once it's parsed. In the future, this may however change to > prevent unexpected recompilations > (http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=19673 ). > > > Jonas
Another thing freepascal allows is for OVERLOAD to be declared one place but not the other. Delphi is more strict in this regard. Also delphi is more strict when it comes to PROGRAM name parsing. In freepascal the program name can mismatch the file name, whereas delphi stops compiling and tells you error. In other cases, freepascal is more strict than delphi. I think Wirth would prefer pascal to be as strict as possible, but sometimes being so strict makes the language less convenient. I don't know. Another thing I noticed is you can just use a begin and end for freepascal without PROGRAM declaration at the top of the program.. again less strict than delphi. In the freepascal unit tests I think they are all just begin/end programs without the program declaration at the top of each file. Possibly more convenient for developers. Wirth would complain and say that's not strict enough. I personally don't know what the best route to choose is. Sometimes convenience is better. Other times I would like to stick to strict. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
