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

[Hans-Peter Diettrich]

Marco van de Voort schrieb:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:12:38PM +0100, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
>>>>> 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".
> 
> I do know what they are. This thread is about the why.

Why what? One is a decision of the language designers, another one the 
decision of the syntax highlighter.

DoDi