[fpc-pascal] "is"
Ok, I got back too late yesterday and now I was examining my patch. And I was surprised when I noticed that I didn't remembered my patch as it was out of my head. My patch never changed any (class is TClass) handling, all inside is your code. I only changed after else (it's not relaxed and won't be as it was said n mail about relaxed mode), and I all along thought that I forgot to check is_related. How it could do too much, did you even inspect the code??? I should probably ask now: "Can I now really get answer what would the problem be?? Interface has no code and thus "is" should be flexible, class has code and it should not be flexible." but I won't, it's getting tiresome, and as always I won't get answer. class "is" (some not related class) - bad interface "is" (some not related interface) - good, that is how it is supposed to work, and you can't make MI interfaces without this option. I'm on about 90% of working MI interfaces and after that is inclass implementation and foreach (inclasses are much better solution than completely missed "implementing interfaces by delegation" or "naming resolution clauses". Whoever needs those two, well it can implement them, I wont because they are stupid and delphi compatible is not on my needed list"). Don't worry, I won't bother you to include MI, inclasses or foreach (in fact I don't even think about it), I suspect it would just lead to another tiresome thread. I'll just notify you, where you can download the patch and documentation, and what you do with it is your decision (somehow history on this mailing list made me think that I would be better off even not knowing your decision). As I said I only want to contribute things incommon and not force anybody. I can't fix the problem if I don't know what the problem is. You can either: - say where the problem lies (example) - correct it as you wan't (I can't, I don't know where problem is) - implement it on your own - use my patch - send my patch in trash and live without (I won't) Personaly, I stopped carring (its been a week or two now, and I still haven't got the answer even where the problem lies) ml -- This mail sent through Horde-Toaster (http://qmailtoaster.clikka.com/) ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] "is"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Personaly, I stopped carring (its been a week or two now, and I still haven't > got the answer even where the problem lies) Well, we try currently prepare 2.0 so the focus is currently on bug fixing so nobody of the developers had time to investigate the patch more deeply yet so 1-2 weeks of delay aren't that big :) ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] "is"
Quoting Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Personaly, I stopped carring (its been a week or two now, and I still > haven't > > got the answer even where the problem lies) > > Well, we try currently prepare 2.0 so the focus is currently on bug > fixing so nobody of the developers had time to investigate the patch > more deeply yet so 1-2 weeks of delay aren't that big :) > 2.0 is being mentioned first at 25 september 2003 (wow, that's a long "currently", and a lot of 1-2 weeks)? And my best guess is that interfaces are not part of the 2.0 plan (even bug reports and fixes I made were completely ignored, just like interfaces aren't part of the 2.0 goal). Then just answer this: Would it be better if I develop things off your mailing list and just notify about things being done 100% (and available for testing, and if it suits you...). There are two ways: on my page or on freshmeat. If interfaces being able to work aren't 2.0 plan then I just waste your time (and even more of mine just sitting and waiting). It is as I said, my project would contain about 2-3 mio lines taking the current state of pascal, and I need to remake some things for my self (to lower things down to 50-75 I have to make changes to compiler), but if they can be of any use to somebody, well it's free as in beer. Why maybe affirmative answer would be better? It would be better for me because answers wouldn't take forever. And it would be better for you because I wouldn't bug you. And then if you need something you take, it will be under the LGPL license. Features being developed now are: MI interfaces 90% (MI=multiple inheritance) Inclasses 15% (embedded classes) foreach 0% (well, we know you hate it) box-type 0% (something like variant, but simpler, better and less memory consuming) and some other things which are mostly done, but my best guess is that will be pascal-off or too- heretic-like and used by me only. ml > ___ > fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org > http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal > -- This mail sent through Horde-Toaster (http://qmailtoaster.clikka.com/) ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] "is"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Quoting Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>>Personaly, I stopped carring (its been a week or two now, and I still >> >>haven't >> >>>got the answer even where the problem lies) >> >>Well, we try currently prepare 2.0 so the focus is currently on bug >>fixing so nobody of the developers had time to investigate the patch >>more deeply yet so 1-2 weeks of delay aren't that big :) >> > > > 2.0 is being mentioned first at 25 september 2003 And? > (wow, that's a long "currently", and a lot > of 1-2 weeks)? And my best guess is that interfaces are not part of > the 2.0 plan (even bug > reports and fixes I made were completely ignored, just like interfaces aren't > part of the 2.0 goal). Interfaces are part of 2.0 but mainly to be dephi compatible. > > Why maybe affirmative answer would be better? > It would be better for me because answers wouldn't take forever. And it would > be better for you > because I wouldn't bug you. And then if you need something you take, it will > be under the LGPL > license. > > Features being developed now are: > MI interfaces 90% (MI=multiple inheritance) > Inclasses 15% (embedded classes) > foreach 0% (well, we know you hate it) It's a useless statement if used for arrays, enumerations etc. It blows up the language for no gain. I really wonder what people would say about a foreach which iterates through arrays in random order. I guess 90 per cent of the programs break though it would be completely legal :) It makes some use for containers like maps however those aren't native types in pascal. > box-type 0% (something like variant, but simpler, better and less memory consuming) > > and some other things which are mostly done, but my best guess is that will be pascal-off or too- > heretic-like and used by me only. History has shown that using incompatible solutions isn't that good. Simply because people prefer to compile their sources with different compilers. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
