So there is absolutely nothing that not allowing to set the field of a function result (with or without with) would prevent that is not otherwise already possible.
Not the field of the original data. It was never my intend to say that. And I actually don't think I did say it.
You can however write to the temporary storage (the non-declared helper variable in which fpc holds the value for read access, until its out of scope).
As it was discussed, when using "with" this is currently allowed (despite it more often is done due to mislead ideas, rather than actually in fashion of a temp local var)
At least such misleading potential was stated, and given as reason for one day changing the "with" abilities.
I merely was curious, because I do not see how this could easily be extended to cover *all* possible cases. And how it would affect method calls that could still do exactly the behaviour that is said to be of such misleading nature.
All I wanted to know is, if there was any comment on that.
No judgment if the planned change is good or not, or anything else. Merely: is it known to be incomplete, or are there ways (that I can not see) to make it complete?
Somehow, the only replies I got where entirely offtopic to that question.
