[fpc-devel] Could FPC add the PLM "based" construct?

Micha Nelissen micha at neli.hopto.org
Mon Nov 16 23:06:57 CET 2009

Giuliano Colla wrote:
> Micha Nelissen ha scritto:
>> Giuliano Colla wrote:
>>> With "absolute" you need a) to declare an extra type (PByte, or 
>> "Declaring an extra type" is one of those things that make Pascal what 
>> it is; declaring before use.
> You mean that declaring "twice" is smarter than declaring just once?

You're actively trying to deceive me here? Nothing is declared "twice" 
as in "two times", but the declaration is split in two pieces. Btw, 9 
times out of 10 the type declaration is reused multiple times so in the 
end it saves typing.

> one for the typed pointer itself. The Pascal type is visible in the 
> pointer type declaration, and not in the pointer declaration (which is 
> in a different section, var vs. type, which in a large program can be 

That's why names were invented in programming languages. Names can add 
meaning to types. It can make the reader see structure instead of chaos.

> It would be more consistent with the rest of the language, but what I 
> suggest is to push consistency on the opposite direction.

The opposite direction is the wrong direction.


More information about the fpc-devel mailing list