On 19/10/2025 18:02, Hairy Pixels via fpc-devel wrote:
On Oct 19, 2025 at 10:50:42 PM, Martin Frb via fpc-devel
<[email protected]> wrote:
Well, yes, it may be unimplemented in the parser... And maybe that is
all of it.
Maybe historically it would have been a complex task to add. Yet,
currently it would seem to be that the parser just needs to skip any
amount of "dot identifier"?
Ideally the parser catches syntax errors before specialization.
Yes, but as you can see from my example, even if a constrained type was
checked, the sub-class that is given to specialization may contain
something different. And with nested declarations, that can even mean
that a member that is accessible via the base class, does no longer
exist in the subclass, i.e the nested type from the base class is
hidden, and the "reintroduced" type does not have the same tree.
Originally I thought, well ok, it allows better checks. But then I
discovered, that this isn't the case.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
