[fpc-pascal] Re: fpc-pascal Digest, Vol 9, Issue 39

listmember listmember at letterboxes.org
Mon May 30 22:48:57 CEST 2005

>> If there is no ambiguity, why worry about whether it
>> conforms to some mystical/celestial strictness..
> Ok, I'll be more specific for those of you who don't see the value in 
> keeping a type declaration as one unit.  I think it greatly reduces 
> readability to not enforce this type rule.  This type rule allows 
> programmers to expect certain things when reading someone elses or their 
> own programs.  

Heck, I am still trying to come to terms with operator overloading;
let's talk about Pascal purism and operator overloading, all in
the same breath in FPC :-)

> Don't get me wrong--I won't be too broken hearted if this 
> is changed in an appropriate way, but I'd rather not see code 
 > like this:
> type
> var
> procedure
> type
> And especially if var or procedure uses something defined in the second 
> type--that breaks top-down design which I think IS an essential 
> philosophy of Pascal.

I am not out to demand that people write code like above either. It's
in everyone's interest to write as clearly as possible.

Yet, there must (or, should) be the flexibility to do it when the
need arises; after all, it is not adding (or, as long as it does
not add) ambiguity.

More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list