In our previous episode, Joerg Schuelke said: > > And C did it because it wanted to save stack space in the minis of > > the early seventies. The rest is IMHO revisionism. > > Ok, not the reason. But coding security is the reason, you should do > so, if you can. Look at Stroustrup. The reason for pascal not to do so, > is what follows from that, a really complicated stack unwinding, for > example.
I've no idea what you mean by that. The need for this in C++ is a heavy use of the RAII paradigm. FPC is much lighter on that, and never runs constructors automatically. It only initializes some pointer values to NIL. So you'll have to explain that remark in more detail. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
