On 21 Mar 01, at 20:40, Markus Gerwinski wrote:

Hello Folks!

Got the following bug today:

type ... tPruzzel = object Procedure amazooka ( proe: pProe ); end (* tPruzzel *);

...

tPruzzel.amazooka ( p: pProe );

begin (* tPruzzel.amazooka *) --> if p = nil then ... end (* tPruzzel.amazooka *);

The "-->" marked line yields a compiler error: "undefined identifier 'p'".

It is not a bug. "p" *is* undefined.

To avoid it, the variable _identifier_ in interface and implementation must be the same.

Of course.

I don't know, if this case intentionally yields an error; anyway, I think it should be a "header does not match", not an "undefined identifier".

There are two errors. The header does not match and "p" is undefined. I am not sure however that it makes a difference which of the two errors is reported by the compiler.

Best regards, The Chief -------- Prof. Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) Author of: Chief's Installer Pro for Win32 http://www.bigfoot.com/~African_Chief/chief32.htm Email: African_Chief@bigfoot.com

Markus Gerwinski wrote:

Hello Folks!

Got the following bug today:

type ... tPruzzel = object Procedure amazooka ( proe: pProe ); end (* tPruzzel *);

...

tPruzzel.amazooka ( p: pProe );

begin (* tPruzzel.amazooka *) --> if p = nil then ... end (* tPruzzel.amazooka *);

The "-->" marked line yields a compiler error: "undefined identifier 'p'". To avoid it, the variable _identifier_ in interface and implementation must be the same.

I don't know, if this case intentionally yields an error; anyway, I think it should be a "header does not match", not an "undefined identifier". The latter one's confusing.

That's a known bug, AFAIK. When "repeating" a forward etc. declaration, GPC ignores the parameter names and takes the names from the first declaration (here: proe). This has confused me more than once, too.

Frank