> Marco van de Voort wrote: > > The constructs are not that frequent, so typing is not limited. I do not > > agree on > > the "clearer" part also. > > > >>From low to high is more clear than IN, since that says nothing about order. > > > Well for..in is not a replacement for the conventional For syntax in all > circumstances but nevertheless it is a convenience to have (a > performance advantage as well perhaps?). > > If FPC is committed to Delphi compatibility then it surely must add this > at some point?
FPC is committed to Delphi compat, but explicitely made an exception for .NET related stuff, even if it is available in Delphi/win32 too, like dotted unit paths. Of course, no decision in a project of this magnitude is final, but there are enough useful things left to do. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
