🚀 go-pugleaf

Andreas Borchert writes:
> I don't see any interpretation which allows the declaration "b = POINTER TO c"
> to be bound to the previously declared type "c". The amendments take
> precedence over the statements before (that follows clear from the text)
> and, consequently, I may declare the referenced type even if there
> exist the same identifier in the outer scope.

Intentionally, there is no difference in Oberon and Oberon-2 on this topic.
The formulations, however, vary slightly.
Taken literally, the Oberon-2 report is (IMHO) ambigous and the Oberon
report may be more than ambigous (i.e. wrong).
Considering the intention, both reports introduce a special rule for
pointer forward declarations. This rule should only be applied
if the pointer base type is not visible, i.e. if a forward reference
is made. There is no forward reference if the base type is already
declared. Consequently, the forward declaration rule cannot be applied.

But, wouldn't it be nice to resolve these ambiguities by removing
local types (and procedures and constants) from the language?

- Josef Templ
the usual disclaimer applies