[fpc-pascal] TP compatibility: procedural type

[Marco van de Voort]

In our previous episode, Anton Shepelev said:
> and the built-in TP documentation:
> 
>   http://putka.upm.si/langref/turboPascal/
> 
> Neither  source makes any exceptions about the 'far'
> and 'near' reserved words.  Thence I concluded  that
> even  though on some platforms these concepts may be
> useless, they are still part  of  the  Turbo  Pascal
> language  and  shall be used as described regarldess
> of architecture even if for cross-platform  compati-
> bility.

The BP manuals (the language bits of which I have read several times)does
not make ANY exceptions and only describes what is implemented, and maybe
an occasional reference to win3.11 models or TC++.

Thus I include it is not a platform independent language description
at all, but an implementation reference.

And FPC does correctly document the deviations in case it is not already
clear.

Moreover, near and far could get meaning in some cases again, and going your
way would seriously hurt implementation freedom (requiring FAR to be
default, while it might not be the default of the platform, thus requiring
many codechanges to get existing codebases running). So while it sounds like
a futility, it is not.