creating defines using keyword names

[Karl-Heinz]

i´m wondering why such defines are allowed ?

DEFINE ASSIGN := 11 AS INT
DEFINE FOR := 12 AS INT
DEFINE NEXT := "aa" AS STRING
DEFINE METHOD := 23 AS INT
DEFINE LOOP := 24 AS INT
DEFINE SEQUENCE := 25 AS INT
DEFINE FOREACH := 26 AS INT
DEFINE __ARGLIST := 34 AS INT
DEFINE DEFINE := 36 AS INT
DEFINE INT := 38 AS INT
DEFINE STRING := 40 AS INT
// DEFINE SELF := 41 AS INT // ok, error XS9002: Parser: mismatched input 'SELF'
// DEFINE SUPER := 42 AS INT // ok, error XS9002: Parser: mismatched input 'SUPER'


If i use fully qualified names, i can even access such defines

? speed.exe.Functions.METHOD
? speed.exe.Functions.SEQUENCE
? speed.exe.Functions.__ARGLIST
? speed.exe.Functions.DEFINE
? speed.exe.Functions.INT
? speed.exe.Functions.String
? speed.exe.Functions.next + "bb"


regards
Karl-Heinz

[FFF]

IIRC, because the compiler knows positional keywords, i.e., is smart. If it is smart to write such defines is another question <g,d&r>

Karl

[robert]

Karl-Heinz

Positional Keywords...

Robert

[Chris]

...and you can use them also almost normally in your code, by prefixing them with @@, in the places where the parser does not allow them:

? @@METHOD

and you can also use this to define a define named "self":

DEFINE @@SELF := 41 AS INT

[Karl-Heinz]

Oki doki,

because of an unwanted delete action I compiled in VO :

DEFINE for := 2

which results in a "bad global name". Tried immediately the same with x#, of course

>
> DEFINE @@SELF := 41 AS INT
>

very nice


regards
Karl-Heinz