On 19 May 2004 at 3:36, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
[...]
As you can see, the point that I made is correct. The original program was not ambiguous, and "Writeln (o.f)" in the original "procedure oo.p" could only correctly refer to the "f" field of the "o" record - it could not correctly refer to the "f" method (unless I am missing something).
Perhaps I was unclear -- I meant renaming the object field `o', not the record field `f'. Then you wil see that `o.f' is valid syntax for a parent method call.
You can probably also look up the syntax in the Borland manuals. As I said, that's the normal syntax for a parent method call, and AFAIK the only one besides `inherited f'.
Of course. I think we are speaking at cross-purposes here. But the long and short of it is that I still do not see the ambiguity in the original example. Perhaps I am just too influenced by having used BP for far too long, and that is what is blinding me to the ambiguity. IAC, if one person sees something as ambiguous, then it is ambiguous, and so perhaps code like that should generate at least a warning (except in BP/Delphi mode). For my part, I would just leave it as it is.
Best regards, The Chief -------- Prof. Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) web: http://www.bigfoot.com/~african_chief/