Am 01.02.2016 16:07 schrieb "Michael Van Canneyt" <mich...@freepascal.org>: > > > > On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Sven Barth wrote: > >>> >>> And modifying the scanner for this exception is a REALLY bad idea. >> >> >> Maciej is in so far right that the intrinsic could indeed be named "if" and >> the only way to call it would thus be by "&if", cause only then the scanner >> would not treat "if" as a keyword. So it would work with what the compiler >> currently can. > > > Then you preclude > > Var > &if : Integer; > > This is a really bad idea. The whole idea of & is to make the above > possible, so you are going to make an exception on an exception ?
That would only be precluded if the &if variable would be in the System unit... > > You really want to create monstrosities as > > &if:=system.&if(a>3,1,3) * b > > Really guys, I know it is ugly, but we don't have to add to it even more; > > Using & in a system intrinsic identifier: how crazy can you get ? > > Sorry Maciej and Sven, but I will personally revert such a change, and shut down the SVN server afterwards to boot so you have time to > calm down and get back to your senses. Get a holiday or so. In case you haven't read my mail carefully enough: I only stated that it's definitely possible to use "if" as an identifier for an intrinsic and to call it using "&if", because you said that it's not possible which is incorrect. I also said that I don't prefer the "&if" and merely joked that it would be more noticeable because of the "&". Regards, Sven
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal