[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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.
Agreed, as far as I'm not pressed myself, to use constructs that I don't like ;-) > > - 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. Such an explicit directive would not be portable, unless introduced by some accepted standard. > > 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 be careful with "most", the most frequently used "modern" processor has anything but a modern architecture. But unfortunately the bundling of bad hardware with bad software seems to be what the consumer market appreciates :-( DoDi _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel