Re: [fpc-pascal] OOP and XML usage
using my system you can retrieve the text by a typecast mytag.first; mytag.findofclass(TXMLText); <- will stop the search at the first object of specified class If mytag.child is TXMLText Then <- to guarantee that we have found something WriteLn((mytag.child as TXMLText).Content); <- will print the contents of the text or if you know the text position between the child tags writeln((mytag.childs[0] As TXMLText).Content); but this is a way quite harder than a simple WriteLn(mytag.properties['ip']); <- will return the property or '' if not set (the object constructor can setup defaults) thats why i prefer tag properties instead of xml text... later you can save the objects with Var F : Text; Begin Assign(F, 'myfile.xml'); Rewrite(F); WriteLn(F, MyTag.AsXML); Close(F); End; 2010/1/29 Graeme Geldenhuys : > Jorge Aldo G. de F. Junior wrote: >> and actually i prefer to setup properties of objects using xml >> properties instead of xml text >> >> instead of >> 192.168.1.180 > > Both examples are valid XML, so I don't see any issue the way I am using > it. My previous example was just that, an example. My actual XML uses both > tag attributes and element text. The later is mainly used for longer text > in my xml file. > > > > Regards, > - Graeme - > > -- > fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal > http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/ > > ___ > fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pas...@lists.freepascal.org > http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal > ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Stupid question: is this safe?
On 1/29/10, Jonas Maebe wrote: > The only problem that can occur is a range check run time error in case > range checking is enabled. Ok, thanks for the quick answer. I actually need this in the fix for IntStrToTime() I'm working on. Bart ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Stupid question: is this safe?
In our previous episode, Bart said: > > The only problem that can occur is a range check run time error in case > > range checking is enabled. > > Ok, thanks for the quick answer. > I actually need this in the fix for IntStrToTime() I'm working on. Btw http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=15633 I also updated the unit test with your most recent questions. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Stupid question: is this safe?
On 1/30/10, Marco van de Voort wrote: > Btw http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=15633 > > I also updated the unit test with your most recent questions. Saw that. We're almost there I guess. I'll post back in Mantis. Thanks, Bart ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Problem with Objective Pascal and delphi mode
Thanks Jonas, One more thing, why is the modeswitch called objectivec1 ? It could be objectivepascal instead. Does the number 1 imply that it's version 1 of the mode and there may be multiple versions supported at the same time? Or was it for Objective C Runtime Library 1.0 ? (I am almost sure that not) thanks, -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Problem with Objective Pascal and delphi mode
On 30 Jan 2010, at 20:08, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote: > One more thing, why is the modeswitch called objectivec1 ? It could be > objectivepascal instead. > > Does the number 1 imply that it's version 1 of the mode and there may > be multiple versions supported at the same time? Or was it for > Objective C Runtime Library 1.0 ? (I am almost sure that not) It means/meant version one of the Objective-C language. The Objective-C language evolves semi-independently of the run time (you can write programs in Objective-C 2.0 running on i386 and ppc32, whose Objective-C runtime is version 1). Objective-C 2.0 (the language) features require Mac OS X 10.5 or later, while 1.0 features are available as of 10.0. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective-C#Objective-C_2.0 and http://lists.apple.com/archives/Objc-language/2006/Aug/msg00039.html for some features that were added in 2.0. And I just realised I actually already added a feature of Objective-C 2.0, namely the ability to specify protocol methods as "optional" (although this will not break programs when running on 10.4 and earlier, because those systems only have version 1.0 of the run time, and in that case no distinction is made in the rtti between optional and required methods -- so this means that FPC takes these modifiers into account during compilation, but the run time won't see/check them when running on such systems). That's also why it says objectivec1 and not objectivepascal1: it refers to the Objective-C 1.0 language. Jonas___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
