Re: [fpc-pascal] About undocumented features

2009-06-10 Thread fpclist
Hi guys,

> "strict" is introduced for new delphi compatibility?

A most welcome addition.

I'm ashamed to admit that I only found out that it's been included in FPC 
today. I ran an old VM which has FPC ver 2.2.2 installed, and "strict" is 
supported! I'm currenly using FPC 2.2.5

What other "jewels" are hidden from "view"? Is there some documentation 
documenting undocummented features that one can read? 

As for compatibility with later releases of Delphi (2007 - 2009 etc), how far 
is FPC going to go? While I don't know whether the FPC team envisage the FPC 
comiler morphing into FPC for .NET, there are some compiler/language feature 
specific to .Net that I wouldn't mind having included in FPC. Some features 
like sealed classes, class constants, class variables, static constructors 
and destructors, to name a few.  Are there plans to implement such features 
in FPC?

I would think that some of the above feature had to be introduced into .Net 
because a (close to) pure OO impementation does not support global vars, 
global functions etc. as a hybrid language like Object Pascal does.

Regards to all,
Nino

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal


Re: [fpc-pascal] About undocumented features

2009-06-10 Thread Jonas Maebe


On 10 Jun 2009, at 10:45, fpcl...@silvermono.co.za wrote:

What other "jewels" are hidden from "view"? Is there some  
documentation

documenting undocummented features that one can read?


That's sort of a contradictio in terminis :) I'm not aware of a list  
of "still to be documented features" either. It's best to file bug  
reports against the documentation when you encounter such omissions.


As for compatibility with later releases of Delphi (2007 - 2009  
etc), how far

is FPC going to go?


Delphi 2009-style generic/unicode string support is planned, but other  
than that there are no fixed plans at this time afaik.



While I don't know whether the FPC team envisage the FPC
comiler morphing into FPC for .NET,


Unlikely, although a .NET code generator could always be added at one  
point.



there are some compiler/language feature
specific to .Net that I wouldn't mind having included in FPC. Some  
features
like sealed classes, class constants, class variables, static  
constructors
and destructors, to name a few.  Are there plans to implement such  
features

in FPC?


No concreate ones. They can always be added if someone is interested  
in doing the work and maintaining them, of course.



Jonas
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal


Re: [fpc-pascal] About undocumented features

2009-06-10 Thread Marco van de Voort
In our previous episode, fpcl...@silvermono.co.za said:
> 
> I would think that some of the above feature had to be introduced into .Net 
> because a (close to) pure OO impementation does not support global vars, 
> global functions etc. as a hybrid language like Object Pascal does.

Java and C#/CLR are usually considered as not pure OO. Pure OO doesn't know
value types. I think most of these were just about scoring bullets on the 
comparison
list with C#, except "strict var". 

Questions about private visibility have appeared regularly in forums for
years, usually comparing with other languages. I think codegear was simply
tired of the debate and implemented "strict *", for people that want to
micromanage visibility (*)

Afaik Florian did some of the easier later constructs, but be careful, some
might not be complete (only parsed). I recall something of the class
var/const etc also working.

There is to my knowledge no real roadmap, since these things are not driven
by roadmap, but by need. Somebody who wants them spends time on them etc.
Probably the slow progress is because none of these are particularly
exciting, and nearly all public codebases and components are D7 backwards
compatible and thus don't contain these.

(*) something which is IMHO not proper OO, which is about modelling not
about finegrained permission models. What's next, classtypes with ACLs ? :-)
___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal


[fpc-pascal] Compiling Lazarus and LCL using rebuilt FPC RTL

2009-06-10 Thread fpclist
Hi Guys,

Assuming that a FPC RTL rebuild has succeeded, can somebody please describe 
the process of rebuilding Lazarus and the LCL using the new FPC RTL?

Regards,
Nino

___
fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal