> On May 27, 2017, at 4:27 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys
> <mailingli...@geldenhuys.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Yeah, that was going to be my suggestion too. I've done this many times when
> many parameters are optional. Use a record as parameter type. The other
> benefit of this is that it is future and backwards compatible. You can add or
> change parameters without breaking the method signature.
can you show an example of this? Just curious.
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
