-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> So instead you'd put a & ? > > Hardly more readable, I'd say. On the contrary. _ is used > already, & is not. And that's exactly the reason for using & and not _. It's not part of a valid identifier. If you look at: &class You see directly it's the escaped identifier "class". The & doesn't naturally read as part of the identifier. If you look at: _class You read it as the identifier "_class". _ is a valid part of an identifier and people reading source are used to parsing it that way. In addition, starting identifiers with an _ is very common to say "that's private, keep you fingers off". E.g. I see often enough in the compiler source currently that there is a public property and the private variable has the same name prefixed by _. If you are overloading the meaning of identifiers starting with an underscore with both "that's private" and "bummer, we had a keyword conflict". Then you are causing confusion. Cheers, Thorsten -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) iD8DBQFFteY9tgfmGfGfuPARAuT2AKCWcqtzDBZqgkgZ0BL0gN6bgRXiwwCeJ09N 1uUfAWgfXS9+eEFR7i3whmQ= =/nWz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
