Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!iuvax!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucdcsb!mccaugh
From: mccaugh@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal
Subject: Re: valid construction?
Message-ID: <169900012@uiucdcsb>
Date: 18 Mar 88 07:26:00 GMT
References: <12171@brl-adm.ARPA>
Lines: 10
Nf-ID: #R:brl-adm.ARPA:12171:uiucdcsb:169900012:000:563
Nf-From: uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu!mccaugh    Mar 18 01:26:00 1988


 Pardon me for saying so, but no one seems to have responded to the original
 question of compiler irregularity, although Ralf (response 2) comes closest.
 Of course this is a compiler error, rendering response 1 superfluous. As to
 the comments about 'maxelts': is this what the compiler refers in its quite
 vague message "Invalid Type"? If not -- and admittedly, nothing else seems
 awry -- it would appear the compiler had not processed the definition of
 type 'record1' first, which specifies the compiler error: failing to process
 definitions in order.