CBFalconer wrote:
Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Emil Jerabek wrote:
The problem with functional parameters seems to be more general, there is nothing special with restricted types. For example, the following program is also incorrect, and accepted by GPC:
program prog; type a=0..5; var c:a; procedure foo(function bar:integer); begin end; function baz:a; begin baz := c end; begin foo(baz) end .
Here the problem was simply that results of functional parameters weren't checked strictly enough, which is easy to fix. (Attached -- unfortunately, not all fixes are so self-explaining. ;-)
How is it incorrect? a being a subrange of integer, baz seems to satisfy the requirements for a parameter of foo. At least as I see it.
Please note that it's a functional parameter. Without the word `function' you would be right. In another mail you write:
BTW, please do not reply both to me directly and to the mailing list. The list should be used unless there is some reason to keep things private.
While I ask for the same as far as I'm concerned, your mails contain the header: Reply-To: cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net Which means (at least to me) that you do want a copy to your private address (which is what I'm doing now as well). If this isn't your intention, you might want to consider removing the `Reply-To' header or pointing it to the list ... :-)
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Frank -- Frank Heckenbach, frank@g-n-u.de, http://fjf.gnu.de/, 7977168E GPC To-Do list, latest features, fixed bugs: http://www.gnu-pascal.de/todo.html GPC download signing key: 51FF C1F0 1A77 C6C2 4482 4DDC 117A 9773 7F88 1707