<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 17 Mar 2013, at 15:02, Luca Olivetti wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Monaco; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">Al 17/03/13 13:54, En/na Marco van de Voort ha escrit:<br><blockquote type="cite">In our previous episode, Sven Barth said:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Texas Instruments' Pascal had an extension of the with statement, IIRC<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">it used = instead of AS<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">With a=VeryLongNameForARecord, b=AnotherRecordWithAVeryLongName do ...<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Now THAT is really unpascalish... either ":=" or the already suggested<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">"as"...<br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Since it is a pseudo variable declaration, I would assume VAR syntax and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">just use ":" ?<br></blockquote><br>That would be consistent with "On E:Exception do writeln(E.message)".<br></span></blockquote></div><br><div>No, because "On E: Exception" says that "E" is of the type "Exception", just like in a variable declaration the expression after the colon also identifies the type. Here it's not about defining the type, but about making a symbol equivalent to repeating a non-type expression. So "=" from symbolic constant declarations would probably be closest. I think ":=" is less good, because ":=" implies that a copy or an assignment is made rather than an equivalence is defined, and hence changes to that copy could be assumed lost afterwards in case of records or objects, which would not be the case.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Jonas</div></body></html>