On 24 Mar 2002 at 1:08, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
[...]
Yes, it is. As I said, GPC currently does *not* do so in all contexts yet.
Maybe this is just a question of words and meanings - but I think you just said that it is not enough ;-).
Did I? How should I have expressed better that I didn't mean this?
Don't worry. What you *meant* was expressed as clearly as it could be. I was just insinuating that the fact that GPC does so in some contexts, while it doesn't do so in some other contexts (which can then lead to hidden or obscure errors in programs) indicates that what GPC does is perhaps not "enough". This is of course a matter of opinion and interpretation, and I accept that being 100% BP compatible in this respect is not a priority. But at the very least, this issue should be documented - or GPC should generate an error (so that the programmer will not assume that the code is going to work correctly). I think we are agreed already that this is a good idea - so I guess the discussion is now redundant.
(Unfortunately, there doesn't be an English translation of the German word "doch". ;-)
Anyway, I meant that it is enough to treat `String' as `String[255]' (which GPC does not yet always do).
Yes. See above.
[...]
Secondly, what exactly do you mean with "any other Pascal compiler"?
The ones I just referred to.
Which are certainly not any other Pascal compilers.
My mistake. What I should have said was "any other compiler that is BP- compatible". I guess my intended meaning is clear now?
[...]
We were talking about BP string compatibility.
Then I guess what you meant to say is that BP and compatibles are a class of their own,
Certainly. And we are trying to emulate that class.
and you'd like GPC to emulate their non-standard behaviour. ;-)
No, it does not make any difference to me, because I have long ago come to terms with the subtle differences. However, others may not have done so, and newbies to GPC will certainly not have. They will then have problems, and will come here to talk about it. Then another discussion of this type may ensue. This can reoccur again and again. We might all end up being grandfathers, and still be answering this question ;-). This is why I am suggesting that we should do something about it.
In generally, I have agreed that we should add this feature (via the switch). However, I don't consider it as important as many other things to do, so the chances that I will do it soon are rather small ...
Fair enough. But can you at least generate an error or add this to the FAQ (i.e., if it is not there already?).
Best regards, The Chief -------- Prof. Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) web: http://www.bigfoot.com/~African_Chief email: African_Chief@bigfoot.com