> On Nov 12, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Ryan Joseph <r...@thealchemistguild.com> wrote: > > But this syntax worked if you assigned it within blocks. Why does it need to > be removed? Since I discovered it I was planning on using it instead of class > functions with default values which require an implementation and are much > longer to write.
Here’s an example of what I was doing before. A constant is so much better and doesn’t require the implementation and we still get the same . syntax, i.e., TPoint.Up. Instead of removing it maybe give the error unless it’s the last field of the record and in which case can assumed to be fully defined. type TPoint = record x: TFloat; y: TFloat; class function Up (_x: TFloat = 0; _y: TFloat = -1): TPoint; static; inline; Regards, Ryan Joseph _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal