🚀 go-pugleaf

>	Actually, you can note the fact that whatever type the symbol has
>    must be compatable with how it is being used, and check that against
>    the actual declaration when you see it.  For example, if I see a
>    function call:

>  intvar := funct( 5.0, "test", 7 );

>   I can note that funct must return a type that can be assigned to an int,
>   and accept a floating point, char array, and integer argument;  then,
>   when I see a declaration of funct, I can check against this usage, and
>   determine whether the previous usage was correct.


     What happens if the intvar is also declared forward ?

     Such things can lead to lot of bookkeeping. Consider a
     following statment and lot of occurrences of the similar
     statements.

     .
     .
     a1 := a1 * f1( x,y,z )+ a2 + a3 + f3............* x100
     .

     ..

     VAR
       x100: type;
       .
       .
       .
       .
       a1: type100


    etc etc.
    

   This could be reasonably difficult to do with one pass.

                                 ..Uday
-------