Alexander Klenin schrieb: >> Many Delphi extensions to the Pascal language break fundamental design >> rules. It's bad enough that FPC (and Lazarus) has to support such >> aberrations for compatibility reasons, > > I agree that some extensions were suboptimally designed, in particular > dynamic arrays, > but "aberrations"? Can you give an example?
Delphi 2 (or 3?) was the last version with a grammar for the language. After that version the supplied "OPL grammar" is neither correct nor complete, the language is no more LL(1). > While I deeply respect Wirth's contributions to programming language design, > I think Modula and especially Oberon are not the best sources for inspiration. I dare to disagree. > Object Pascal has log ago taken different direction -- for example, > if we "take into account" Oberon, then we should, as a first step, > remove strings, classes, virtual functions and "for" loop. > I do not think this is a good way to evolve FPC ;-) Please note that I don't ask for Modula or Oberon compatibility, even if it were fine to have such modes. DoDi _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
