[Oberon] Clarifying type compatibility in Oberon-07

August Karlstrom fusionfile at gmail.com
Fri Oct 6 15:57:28 CEST 2017

On 2017-10-06 12:19, Andreas Pirklbauer wrote:
> every procedure used as an actual parameter would have to be given an
> explicit name, >
I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

> Personally I’m indifferent. I can live with the current status quo for
> arrays (where assignments of different ARRAY types are only allowed in
> the case of open arrays). But I would also accept a relaxation of the
> type equivalence rule in that case (knowing how easy it is to implement).
I agree with this. I primarily just want to know which features I can 
rely on.

-- August

More information about the Oberon mailing list