On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 11:55 AM, Michael Schnell <mschn...@lumino.de> wrote:
> what to to if a function has no parameter and returns a value that is a > pointer to a function of exactly this type ? The logical thing for the compiler would be to assume that the programmer meant that a reference should be passed. If the programmer wanted to invoke the function ans pass the result reference they should use empty parentheses aka "the invocation operator": CallFunction(SomeFunction); // passes a reference to SomeFunction. CallFunction(SomeFunction()); // passes the result of the invocation of SomeFunction. So no ambiguity, albeit a very subtle semantic difference that can easily produce bugs. But IMHO the "@" notation isn't much better either. PS: I tend to always use the "()" notation when invoking functions with no arguments so it will be clear to a future reader that I'm invoking a function and not assigning some variable. Makes a difference with poorly named functions (not starting with a verb): ADate := Date; ADate := Date();
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
