Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018, 02:56 hat Ryan Joseph <r...@thealchemistguild.com> geschrieben:
> > > > On Nov 12, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Ryan Joseph <r...@thealchemistguild.com> > wrote: > > > > But this syntax worked if you assigned it within blocks. Why does it > need to be removed? Since I discovered it I was planning on using it > instead of class functions with default values which require an > implementation and are much longer to write. > > Here’s an example of what I was doing before. A constant is so much better > and doesn’t require the implementation and we still get the same . syntax, > i.e., TPoint.Up. > > Instead of removing it maybe give the error unless it’s the last field of > the record and in which case can assumed to be fully defined. > No, that is too random for a language. This change is not up for discussion as it could lead to incorrect code. Regards, Sven >
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
