> On Nov 12, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Ryan Joseph <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> But this syntax worked if you assigned it within blocks. Why does it need to
> be removed? Since I discovered it I was planning on using it instead of class
> functions with default values which require an implementation and are much
> longer to write.
Here’s an example of what I was doing before. A constant is so much better and
doesn’t require the implementation and we still get the same . syntax, i.e.,
TPoint.Up.
Instead of removing it maybe give the error unless it’s the last field of the
record and in which case can assumed to be fully defined.
type
TPoint = record
x: TFloat;
y: TFloat;
class function Up (_x: TFloat = 0; _y: TFloat = -1): TPoint; static; inline;
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
