> On 24 Jul 2005, at 11:26, Adriaan van Os wrote:
>> Ah, I believe we have a misunderstanding ! MW passes all const
>> *records* by reference, but it doesn't pass all const *parameters*
>> by reference (non-record types like Int32 and Double).
> Ah ok, then there is no problem. MWPascal indeed only affects the
> passing of const records.
Added a clarification to the wiki, that only *records* are affected.
> The problem with requiring to specify the
> mwpascal calling convention for callbacks remains, of course.
Doesn't MWPASCAL affect callbacks ?
> So for
> that const var may be a better solution.
Yes, even if CONST VAR is a bit ugly (since it is a contradiction) it might
be the best solution.