Re: Dropping some misfeatures in for-loops and `absolute' variables

Frank Heckenbach wrote:

So, would anybody mind dropping this misfeature, and requiring an identifier in for-loop counters?

Do agree that it is not needed.

The same (and probably a lot of other weird stuff) can be achieved We support `absolute' for BP compatibility, but IMHO then we should restrict it to what BP requires, i.e. really absolute addresses, or the address of entire variables or parameters.

I am not enthousiastic about this one because GPC - is very restrictive in what typecasts are allowed - typecastst with $R+ cause range-check errors. Regards, Adriaan van Os