According to Frank Heckenbach:
A directive (*$Foo="Bar"*) is always equivalent to a command-line option `--foo="Bar"'. I was just thinking about reasonable names for these options.
BP does *not* pass the size of untyped parameters to the procedure. Changing GPC would break compatibility to both C and BP; the latter being unimportant because nobody will consider it a feature *not* to have the size of a variable. OTOH, many C libraries rely on a `void*' parameter *not* being followed by a `size' parameter.
Instead of changing the meaning of `Var foo', we are IMHO better off when introducing a *safe* mechanism to pass variables of varying type (and number). Procedure overloading will be "half the rent". ;-)
Okay; I have put it on my list.
Plan: Recognize it, but warn. With `--borland-pascal' (same as (*$borland-pascal*) :-), don't warn.
Greetings,
Peter
Dipl.-Phys. Peter Gerwinski, Essen, Germany, free physicist and programmer peter.gerwinski@uni-essen.de - http://home.pages.de/~peter.gerwinski/ [970201] maintainer GNU Pascal [970624] - http://home.pages.de/~gnu-pascal/ [970125]
On Wed, 2 Jul 1997, Peter Gerwinski wrote:
Frank: you could just do an include file with all the path options, and you just change this file... That's how I do almost every thing (compiler options and defines in a separate "config file" which I include everywhere).
Pierre Phaneuf
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense." - Edsger W. Dijkstra.