It would be possible to allow this syntax :
move(data ...
in addition to the current :
move(data[0] ...
There is no fundamental reason why it wouldn't be possible.
There is: there is no reason why move should be handled differently than other
procedures.
But currently move *does* handle dynamic arrays differently than other
procedures. You can use an array as parameter for a function or procedure and
it does not matter whether it's dynamic or not. So the identifier means the
array in both cases. But this does *not* apply to move or fillchar! That's
illogical.
If you mess with move
What do you mean with "mess". It's a standard function since decades. The only thing that
was "messed up" was the syntax of dynamic arrays.
and have no clue about internals, then you get burned. Period. Proper dyn.
array code uses copy(...) instead of move.
That's nonsense. The only thing that is wrong here is that the identifier for an dynamic array means different things dependend from the context.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
