Hello, everybody!
I am currently fixing the bug with `otherwise' in `case' statements. While the ISO 10206 Extended Pascal standard wants
case foo of (* 1 *) bar: writeln ( 'foobar!' ); otherwise write ( 'The answer is: ' ); writeln ( answer ); end (* case *);
GPC implemented
case foo of (* 2 *) bar: writeln ( 'foobar!' ); otherwise: begin write ( 'The answer is: ' ); writeln ( answer ); end (* otherwise *); end (* case *);
which is simply wrong. Okay - when I fix it, does anybody want to keep an optional colon after `otherwise'? Or after `else' in the Borland syntax? (I would prefer if *not*.)
I also found `default' and `others' as synonyms for `otherwise' which I would like to remove. May I? Or are they needed for compatibility with some Pascal compiler I am not aware of? If so, what is the syntax? Example 1 or 2 above?
While I am on it, what about removing `&' as an address operator and to keep only the BP-compatible `@'?
Please post your opinions here.
Thanks,
Peter
Dipl.-Phys. Peter Gerwinski, Essen, Germany, free physicist and programmer peter.gerwinski@uni-essen.de - http://home.pages.de/~peter.gerwinski/ [971005] maintainer GNU Pascal [971001] - http://home.pages.de/~gnu-pascal/ [971005]
which is simply wrong. Okay - when I fix it, does anybody want to keep an optional colon after `otherwise'? Or after `else' in the Borland syntax? (I would prefer if *not*.)
I also found `default' and `others' as synonyms for `otherwise' which I would like to remove. May I? Or are they needed for compatibility with some Pascal compiler I am not aware of? If so, what is the syntax? Example 1 or 2 above?
While I am on it, what about removing `&' as an address operator and to keep only the BP-compatible `@'?
I would strongly encourage you to do this. I think it is better (if you think with longer future in mind) to have not too often different words for the same meaning. Changing some sourcefiles should be no problem. The problem are the beginners which are confronted with different words for one meaning.
Yours
Hans