Am 01.02.2016 13:29 schrieb "Michael Van Canneyt" <mich...@freepascal.org>: > > > > On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Maciej Izak wrote: > >> 2016-02-01 13:09 GMT+01:00 Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org>: >>> >>> >>> No. The compiler already uses &. >>> >>> & means 'the following is an identifier even if it is a keyword'. >>> >>> You can perfectly declare and compile: >>> >>> Var >>> &if : integer; >>> >>> begin >>> &if:=1; >>> end. >>> >>> So &if is a bad idea. >> >> >> >> Yes it is possible. Anyway it is better idea than IfThen. You treat facts >> selectively. How often is used &if and how often is used IfThen? > > > You missed my point. > > >> >> &IfThen looks also good (I like shorter syntax &if). With "&" prefix it is >> obvious that this function is unique. > > > You misunderstand. > > The & character cannot be used as part of an identifier, it is a special token. > > It is eaten by the scanner. The parser will never see it. You simply cannot define "&if' as an identifier. The parser will always see 'if'. > > scanner.pas around line 4607. > > And modifying the scanner for this exception is a REALLY bad idea.
Maciej is in so far right that the intrinsic could indeed be named "if" and the only way to call it would thus be by "&if", cause only then the scanner would not treat "if" as a keyword. So it would work with what the compiler currently can. I'm more inclined to use iif() however, as &if() doesn't look that nice... (though it would be more noticeable :P ) Regards, Sven
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
