[fpc-devel] Consideration on "$CapturerClass" - reference to function - and debugging

[Martin Frb]

On 25/08/2026 22:19, Martin Frb via fpc-devel wrote:
> On 25/08/2026 21:42, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
>> No, it makes no logical sense to put a type, that is *logically* a 
>> child of a routine be part of the top level. Also it may contain 
>> references to types that are local to the surrounding routine.
>

Off topic to the original question, but this just reminds me.

What is the stance on representing

type
   Tfoo = class
   protected type
     TBar = class
....

With the same nesting in DWARF?

After all, currently all of those go top level, and they are
- causing real name conflicts
- don't resolve if users copy the full qualified name from code
- don't resolve if a debugger uses RTTI to get the name