2011/10/21 Tomas Hajny xhaj...@hajny.biz
On 20 Oct 11, at 17:43, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
It's inconsistent and ripe for bugs.
Array indices may start at any ordinal value (including e.g.
characters, values of enumerated types, etc.), not just 0. Only
dynamic arrays always start at 0
On 21 Oct 2011, at 08:25, Roberto P. wrote:
During compilation, by statically checking the indices used to access the
string, the compiler could fire a warning (or error?) if a string[0] is
found.
The compiler already does that (except for shortstrings, where string[0] is
valid).
Jonas
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
During compilation, by statically checking the indices used to access the
string, the compiler could fire a warning (or error?) if a string[0] is
found.
The compiler already does that (except for shortstrings, where string[0] is
valid).
Isn't
On 10/20/11 17:43, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
It's inconsistent and ripe for bugs.
Cheers,
Andrew Pennebaker
www.yellosoft.us http://www.yellosoft.us
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
On 20 Oct 11, at 17:43, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
It's inconsistent and ripe for bugs.
Array indices may start at any ordinal value (including e.g.
characters, values of enumerated types, etc.), not just 0. Only
dynamic arrays always start at 0 because that is how they have been
imported from
On 10/20/2011 17:43, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
It's inconsistent and ripe for bugs.
funny thing, that... i thought the same thing when looking at the proposals and
requests :LOL:
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
