[fpc-pascal] Re:

[Florian Klaempfl]

listmember wrote:

> Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> 
>> It's simply the philosophy of pascal: things which need not to work
>> don't work. The extra type gives no gain, so why should be allowed? 
> 
> 
> I am not sure it is one of those things that need not work.

What would be the gain?

> 
> You could look at it from a different perspective: It does not
> add any ambiguity to anything at all. Why then disallow it.

See my reasons I gave earlier in this thread but there is no reason to
allow it.

> 
> I mean, is there really a difference between this:
> 
> type
>  pMyRec = ^tMyRec;
> 
> type
>   tMyRec = Record
>     data:pointer;
>     next:pMyRec;
>   end;
> 
> and this:
> 
> type
>   pMyRec = ^tMyRec;
> 
>   tMyRec = Record
>     data:pointer;
>     next:pMyRec;
>   end;
> 
> especially since there isn't a different kind of declaration
> between the first 'type' and the second --and even if there were.
> 
>> It makes
> 
>> - reading the code harder
>> - work for the compiler harder => slower and more error prone compiler
> 
> 
> Interesting... this little bit of flexiblity would make
> life that hard for the compiler?

Well, don't forget that adding more flexibility could also be abused, if
you example worked, why shouldn't

type
 pMyRec = ^tMyRec;

var
  i :longint;

type
  tMyRec = Record
    data:pointer;
    next:pMyRec;
  end;

work. There is simply a limit in flexibility where it gives no extra
gain anymore.

> 
> So, these 2 different forms are theated differently by the
> compiler too?
> 
> This:
> 
> const SOME_NUMBER1 = 1;
> const SOME_NUMBER2 = 2;
> const SOME_NUMBER3 = 3;
> const SOME_NUMBER4 = 4;
> 
> and this:
> 
> const
>   SOME_NUMBER1 = 1;
>   SOME_NUMBER2 = 2;
>   SOME_NUMBER3 = 3;
>   SOME_NUMBER4 = 4;

Internally of course, the second is compiled faster, you won't notice it
though in this example ;)