[Lazarus] Should the "at" word be painted as reserved word ?

[Hans-Peter Diettrich]

Marco van de Voort schrieb:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:25:34AM +0800, Paul Ishenin wrote:
>>> According to my "Sprachgef??hl" this cannot be anything other than a
>>> reserved word. Its not an identifier, its not an operator, it can only
>>> be a reserved word.
>> At is not a reserved word. It works only in the context of a raise 
>> statement.
> 
> How is this different from "until" ?

Borland made a distinction between *reserved* words and *directives*. 
Reserved words cannot be used as identifiers, while directives are 
recognized as something special only in their related context, and can 
be used as identifiers in all other places. If you ever happened to 
write a break() or exit() procedure, you'll have noticed that your 
remaining code may fail with very strange errors, because these take 
precedence over the language-defined behaviour of "break" or "exit".

DoDi