I would say: GPC *does* optimize this. Just type `gpc -O -S foo.pas' and look at `foo.s' ...

Fine! I'll take a look at it.

It would not be too difficult to make "MyStr.length" and "MyStr.String" accessible "record fields" of strings. Would it be desireable?

Yes! (At least length; the String part is accessible anyway with s[n].)

I am not sure how this fits into the standard ...

I'm not, either. If it conflicts, it should be disabled with "--extended-pascal", I suppose.

Another thing *is* planned: A new data type `ShortString' (or `ShortStr'?) which will be the UCSD/Borland version of Strings. In many contexts, they are better than Extended Pascal string schemata because they have only 1 byte overhead instead of 8. (But this will be a lot of work. Anybody interested to help here???)

What about another type with a 2 byte length field (2 instead of 8 bytes overhead)? 255 chars max length are sometimes not enough. BTW: I heard Delphi has some kind of long strings. Anyone knows what they are?

...

(Are you planning to make strings regular schema types then -- regular except for the extended syntax that allows s[n]?)

No. They are exceptions in yet another way because they have the implicit read-only "length" field.

That's what I meant. If length was made accessible in a normal way, it would not be an exception.