When messing with pointers you've to know what to write because pointers
allow unlimited access to internal data structures.
That's not the point. It is very easy to use pointers if they behave
like this but not if they are used as if they are arrays. I need a fixed
and unambiguous syntax for
1.) The address of the pointer (@p)
2.) The pointer (p)
3.) The data the pointer is pointing to (p^)
What of these 3 possibilities do I have if I use the identifier
"DynamicArray"? You can't say it in general because it depends on the
context.
Sorry, but I can't
help you if you guess wrong while playing with dangerous stuff (and the
original poster did so: using move is a dangerous operation) instead of
reading the manual.
Again that's not the point. The original poster was aware of what move
does but was not sure what to write when meaning the array (not the
pointer). The general rule that an identifier always has a (fixed) type
was no longer valid.
If the syntax was unambigous there would be no need to guess. Why should
I use the first element of an array when I want to specify the whole
array? If I have a fixed array I don't do that either. I am forced to do
illogical things because the syntax is no longer logical.
They are strict. However, if one does not understand the logic, it looks
indeed like magic.
That's the point: There *is* no logic! At least you have to give several
other contraints which makes it unnecessary complicated. The
"DynamicArray" is the array if you index it with square brackets and it
is the array if you feed it to other routines but it suddenly turns into
a pointer if you use it with move.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
