Someone who uses Linux and observes this bug for a 64-bit target compilation can he fill in a bug report?
Otherwise I would do it, but just with the forum information!

Thanks badidea. @Admins and others, So it seems that the problem has nothing to do with the use of Poseidon, but would only be present when compiling for Linux 64-bit (no problem when compiling for Windows). The problem when compiling for Linux 64-bit is: - global variables are constructed after the...

No problem with Poseidon for Windows.

Okay.
Nevertheless, I set myself a goal of 2 weeks to release the article.

Let's go! See preamble at: Index page of tutorial / teaching / pedagogical topics (draft articles for documentation) But it will take me some time to clearly describe how to move from a recursive implementation ("tail" / not "tail") to an iterative implementation ("simple&qu...

I'll say that the Manual is the best place to look for this info. For polymorphism, the main information is at the page: VIRTUAL Other linked pages: ABSTRACT , OBJECT , EXTENDS , OVERRIDE Additional pages: Operator Is (Run-time type information) , BASE (member access) , BASE (in...

For me, good examples bring home a textural definition. There are too many examples in the Manual and Wiki that just do not pass muster. Maybe it just me. <smile> For me, the first objective of an example is to illustrate how to use the syntax of the described keyword, but not necessary to present ...

Me, I always use 'This' explicitly when accessing a member field from a member procedure, because the code is so much more clear and symmetrical (highlighting access to a member field): - access a member field ('xxx') of an object ('u') from outside its type: 'u.xxx' - access a member field ('xxx') ...

Very obvious example: Type UDT Dim As Integer I Declare Sub init1 (Byval I As Integer) Declare Sub init2 (Byval I As Integer) End Type Sub UDT.init1 (Byval I As Integer) I = I End Sub Sub UDT.init2 (Byval I As Integer) This.I = I End Sub Dim As UDT u u.init1(1234) Print u.I u.init2(1234) Print u.I S...

So you can try to use sub-type polymorphism as proposed above.

By cons for me, it works for both Win32 and Win64.
Have you done your test with Linux?

See CONSTRUCTOR (Module)

One cannot transform your function into the 'Shl' operator because such operators do not support recursion In fact, it works. I should have tried it before thinking that the binary operators did not support recursion! operator shl(byval n as CInt96, byval k as long) as CInt96 dim as ulong a, b, c a...

One cannot transform your function into the 'Shl' operator because such operators do not support recursion, but one can declare a 'Shl' operator that calls this function: operator shl(byref n as CInt96, byref k as long) as CInt96 return shift_left96(n, k) end operator dim as CInt96 big=8 for k as lo...

About your previous remark but now suppressed (code works with "Return' but not with 'Function ='): - 'Return' calls the copy-constructor while 'Function =' calls the let-operator but as the two procedures have the same code, so the problem is not coming for here! - The other difference between...

Module constructors are fired before any module level code. So that includes the declaration of n and therefore n's UDT constructor gets fired after test.init(). Without the UDT constructor my type is too simple to have an implicit constructor so it remains basically a struct and keeps the value. W...