CC'ed to [email protected] => for follow ups
On 23/04/2026 15:23, Graeme Geldenhuys via fpc-pascal wrote:
On Thursday, 23 April 2026 10:53:02 BST michael via fpc-pascal wrote:
Other than that I have no knowledge of missing delphi things except
inline variables.
I just just reading a article from a few years ago, explaining the pros and
cons of inline variables. It actually made a really good case for that. There
is a open MR for inline variables already - just not review/merged.
https://blogs.embarcadero.com/introducing-inline-variables-in-the-delphi-language/
Apart from the general yes/no question....
(and I haven't looked deep into language design..., still...)
If for arguments sake, it was a yes:
1) "begin/end" are compound statements, not scopes (even mentioned on
the big forum thread)
2) If a "inline scope" existed, no mention of "inline var" only at the
start thereof.
3) same keyword "var" but significant difference: block vs single
statement (one var only)
Currently (not tested), but from description
if foo then begin
writeln;
var bar: integer = 1; // mid (implied) scope
readln;
end;
So within the "for arguments sake", shouldn't it then be
if foo then
// optional introduction of new keyword to start scope
var // "var" starts scope (and must be followed by "begin"
bar: integer = 1;
bar2: integer = 2;
begin
writeln;
readln;
end;
- Without a "scope keyword" => "var" starts the new scope. That scope
covers the next statement (which must be compound begin/end).
- var block ends at begin (which starts the statement for which the
scope will last)
And the "for var i :=
is inconsistent. Its the only one that allows "var" mid-statement. (wel,
its the only(?) LHS that can be mid statement...)
Any word on multi-line text blocks? ;-) Coming from Java, I so MISS that in
Object Pascal! :-D
Aren't they in 3.3.1 already? And 2 forms? backtick and multi-single-quote?
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
