On 31/10/2013 14:41, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
...and this modification would only become relevant for new code, so
quite probably not worth the compiler extra code. Yes, I can
understand this too. But my question was not about changing the
behavior of fpc (not any more). This was a theoretical question. In
other words, if you had been in a position to create TP back in
nineteen something, and if one of your main concerns had been about
respecting the Pascal philosophy, how would you have handled this? The
way it has been done? Or do you agree this was not quite orthodox
(although efficient)?
Well, that depends on how you see a type.
If a type is something that I can use to declare a variable, then the
"type-information" (for lack of another term) that is part of a typed
variable is not a "type". Because I can not use it to declare a variable..
So if you differ between type, and type-information then there is no
conflict.
A typed variable has type info (never mind RTTI, it may just be avail at
compile time). this type info can be accessed through the variable.
---
Also where is the problem with it?
By making a variable or function's result) public, you declare, that it
should be usable. So you should expect all indirect requirements to be
made available too.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
