7 Oct
2004
7 Oct
'04
8:15 a.m.
On 5 Oct 2004 at 12:41, Scott Moore wrote:
[...]
The reasons were as follows:
- The overload status of a procedure or function is very important
while parsing the header. Therefore it saves work to specify it there.
- The directive slot after a procedure or function:
procedure x; <directive>;
Was clearly designed such that the directive replaces the body of the procedure or function logically. I.e., both "forward" and "external" both replace the body. Having a new directive that does not replace the body is out of whack with the original intent of the syntax of a directive.
Well, I think that GPC is already down this route, with attributes and other stuff. I also think that GPC should aim for full compatibility with Delphi in this case.
Best regards, The Chief -------- Prof. Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) web: http://www.greatchief.plus.com/