> On 17/03/2013 12:54, Marco van de Voort wrote: >> >> Since it is a pseudo variable declaration, I would assume VAR syntax and >> just use ":" ?
This is indeed better. On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Martin <laza...@mfriebe.de> wrote: > Or maybe it should require a "variable" declaration (or otherwise declared > identifier with fixed type). > > Otherwise it goes into an undesirable direction: > > Function Foo; > begin > with a: SomeInteger do Work(a); > with a: SomeBoolean do Work(a); > end; > > a is first integer, then boolean within the same scope. *Very* confusing. This is what already happens between the members of "aliased" variables, and that's IMO reason for the proposal. So I don't see a problem, on the contrary, it's progress since it needs a more direct/clearer user "error" to be bitten by it. > And very close to the next step (which of course can be rejected by the > compiler) It would be better. > Function Foo; > begin > with a: SomeInteger do begin > Work(a); > with a: SomeBoolean do Work(a); // masking a > end; > end; > > But if the inner a was Integer too, then maybe it should work? Unless it > gets a similar special status like a loop variable? I don't think so. > ------------------- > IIRC in other threads on this topic, some people explicitly stated they > wanted this feature so the would not need to declare "a" first (I may > remember this wrong). > IMHO starting with the first loop hole of allowing an undeclared identifier > to be used, is just opening the door to more and more weakening of the > language requirement. > Besides, it does not hurt, if "a" needs to be declared. My POV is "with" already implies an undeclared variable. Regards, Flávio _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
