Do you have some inside information on the extra limitations regarding ordinal, floating point, and set types?
As I understand, the only limitation on operator “overloading” should be that the operator do not have a default interpretation for the operands–result type combination. The modulus operator, for example, is certainly not defined by default as (Double, Double) → Double; but when I try to define it, the compiler says it’s an “[i]mpossible operator overload”. The same goes for logical operators on enumeration types. (Although each enumeration element has an underlying numerical value, it requires the use of Ord() or an explicit cast to convert it into a numerical type accepted by bitwise logical operators.) Maybe I should start preparing for a bug report? On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Sven Barth <pascaldra...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Some parameter combinations are not allowed, because certain inline > operators are already in place. I don't know their exact rulings, but > ordinals (Integer values, floating point values), enums and sets are a bit > restricted regarding overload (especially if it is a binary operator where > left and right is of such a type). -- Best regards, JC Chu _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
