> Let me add some more thoughts about procedural types: > > - I like the ability to declare procedural types, the ISO convention > looks like one of the many incredible C hacks to me :-(
But it is standard pascal. And we need to support those zillion lines of code out there, written in standard pascal. > - For the restricted use of local subroutines as procedural parameters I > could imagine a "const" prefix in the accepting procedure declaration: > > procedure my_fun(const pf: tfun); This will be unclear imo, I would prefer a directive which tells what it really is about. > Hmm, the hidden frame parameter still will make a difference with local > subroutines. At least in Pascal calling convention, where the arguments > are popped by the called subroutine, not by the caller... The pascal calling convention is not used on most modern processors, since parameters instead are passed in registers. > - I'd appreciate to define procedures based on procedural types as well. > Currently a change to the procedural type requires updates of all > derived procedure declarations. Something like: > > myproc: tfun = > begin > blabla > end; This would increase the changeability but decrease readabillity of the code. A C programmer would have liked this feature :) Olle _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
