In article <85795$54978fe1$5419aafe$2...@news.ziggo.nl>, skybuck2000 @hotmail.com says... > > Hello, > > In the past I wrote about pascal's ; mistake. > > ; should be used as a continuator. > > I just made a programming mistake which solidifies/merits my idea: > > The programming mistake was this: > > vBattlefieldLosingWarrior := > > // modified warrior and brain > vSimulatorWinningWarrior := vBattlefieldBattle.Warrior[0]; > > Code should look like this: > > vBattlefieldLosingWarrior := > TBattlefieldWarrior(vBattlefieldBattle.Warrior[2].Association); > > // modified warrior and brain > vSimulatorWinningWarrior := vBattlefieldBattle.Warrior[0]; > > Fortunately there was a type mistmatch which hinted me at the programming > mistake. > > The code is a bit messy above so let's make a simpler example to understand, > the in my oppinion, dangerous programming mistake: > > A := > > B := C; > > The above statements "A :=" is valid in Delphi's current design. > > The danger is that B is assigned to A which is not what I wanted, the > problem was missing code at A. > > So the danger is that some day, somebody will write B in such a way that it > will accidently be assigned to A. > > By using ";" as a continuator instead of a "seperator" the code would look > as follows: > > A := > > B := C > > Since there was no continuator specified, "future-Delphi" would have been
That is perfectly valid and a good idea too. You can have a string of variables you need to initiate to short cut the coding, plus I also think it compacts the generated code because you only need to load a single register with the initial value. A:=B:=C:=D:=0; All get set the zero.. Jamie -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list