JD>* In a message originally to Stephen Hurd, Mark Hoover said:

JD> MH> Which then brings the question, what's better?  Another broken
JD> MH> compiler? Or one that actually implements the Pascal standards
JD> MH> properly?

JD>This has been one of the major problems slowing me down with the
JD>porting of stuff like BRE, etc.  Some of the code relies heavily on
JD>old Borland Pascal bugs and it's difficult or nearly impossible to
JD>replicate.

JD>And when I say "some of the code" I mean some significant parts of
JD>it.  It's had me groaning for years.

Well, I never did say it was easy unfortunately.  I'm an old C/C++ 
person, never did do any Pascal, so wouldn't even have a clue as to 
what's broke and what's not.


JD>In my case, I'd prefer a compiler where I can issue a single
JD>directive to "break" the way it builds the app.  That way, it's
JD>standards compliant, but with a flip of a switch, I can emulate all
JD>those old bugs.

I heard somebody was working on that, but I never really followed it....

þ CMPQwk 1.42 1960 þNuke them 'til they glow, then shoot them in the dark

~~~ Telegard/QWK v3.09.g2-sp4/mL

--- MirageNet HQ!