On 25/08/2026 22:19, Martin Frb via fpc-devel wrote:
On 25/08/2026 21:42, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote:
No, it makes no logical sense to put a type, that is *logically* a
child of a routine be part of the top level. Also it may contain
references to types that are local to the surrounding routine.
Off topic to the original question, but this just reminds me.
What is the stance on representing
type
Tfoo = class
protected type
TBar = class
....
With the same nesting in DWARF?
After all, currently all of those go top level, and they are
- causing real name conflicts
- don't resolve if users copy the full qualified name from code
- don't resolve if a debugger uses RTTI to get the name
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
