> But *if* I had to decide I would pick #1, cause then there wouldn't be > the chance to break existing code if a user decides to add a constructor > to their record and some other code relies on there not being a > constructor. Also due to the syntax > TYPENAME(FIELDNAME:VALUE[;FIELDNAME:VALUE[;…]]) it's in principle > possible to have the parser distinguish whether it's a typecast or a > default constructor.
I would pick #1, too, seems more natural to me. There's no ambiguity as well thanks to : in the syntax. I do wonder how often this would be used, though. Despite being idiomatic in many languages, it doesn't really save much typing that traditional way (if that's the main purpose). -- Sent from: http://free-pascal-general.1045716.n5.nabble.com/ _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
