Paul Ishenin schrieb:
That's an issue, yes. Although, in this case the constant "auto" could
be independend from the keyword "auto". So it would not fail. Instead
constant and array size would not be related in any way (although it
appears like that).
I can't. How compiler will decide whether this is a constant 'auto' or a
keyword inside the const declaration?
Well, then it could be made that if the constant is defined, it would be used,
otherwise automatic caculation is used.
Nevertheless, even if it works it is not a good idea because it's confusing.
I would go for
arr: [1..] of Integer = (1, 2, 3);
Maybe, but this can lead to ocasional errors. What if developer forgot
to write the paticular value on which program execution depends.
Then a runtime error would occur. Currently you can forget to add a value *and*
the upper bounds too.
I would use arr[] of Integer as in C. This would also simplify code porting :)
I would not like to be forced using zero as starting index. If such changes are
made
it should be more Pascal-like.
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
