Do you mean for a statement like integer r = r + 1 ; ? I think these are two separate issues. Gord brought up your issue some time ago. I did not yet find where. Here we are just making the LRM consistent. The issue could come up also in a parameter declaration, I think. Even if one would be allowed to do such a thing, I would not want to encourage. It seems to me to be bad methodology to use the same identifier with two different meanings. Shalom > One item that isn't crystal clear and arises as soon as the > "constant expression" requirement is dropped is where the > "point of declaration" for the variable lies, before, or > after, the initializing expression? If that's not clear > enough elsewhere, it should be stated in place of the > "constant expression" restriction. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Apr 24 01:59:37 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 24 2008 - 01:59:57 PDT