[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: INC/DEC behaviour

To: ooc-list@informatik.uni-kl.de
Subject: Re: INC/DEC behaviour
From: Tim Teulings <tim@edge.ping.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 19:03:44 +0200
In-Reply-To: <9708250952.AA06895@trt.allied.com>; from Mike Griebling on Mon, Aug 25, 1997 at 05:52:22AM -0500
References: <9708250952.AA06895@trt.allied.com>

Hallo!

> I would like to see the INC/DEC type compatibility exactly the same
> as the statements:
> 
>       i:=i+j   or i:=i-j
> 
> where the types of i and j are such that both are integers and the
> type of j is an integer-compatible type.

From my personal view: Why not. Tis is the way I would understand DEC/INC
should function: As a shortcut. Does the language definition explicitely
stae the current oo2c behaviour?

> So far, I'm aware that the Oberon/F compiler allows the less
> restrictive form of the INC/DEC as proposed here.  The ETH systems
> do not.

This would again be a reson for (another) portability flag.

-- 
Gru...
       Tim.

References:
- INC/DEC behaviour
  - From: Mike Griebling <grieblm@trt.allied.com>

Prev by Date: INC/DEC behaviour
Next by Date: Re: INC/DEC behaviour
Prev by thread: INC/DEC behaviour
Next by thread: Re: INC/DEC behaviour
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread