Re: [fpc-pascal] Console Encoding in Windows (Local VS. UTF8)
On 2013-07-10 11:19, Tomas Hajny wrote: > > Sure, but you can't select just any True Type fonts for console windows > (only Lucida is offered in WinXP; And is so since Win95. Just amazing that Windows Console is so far behind other platforms - it's rather ridiculous if you think about it. If I used Windows, I would install a different console application — there must be better after-market ones out there. But yes, this probably doesn't solve your or your clients problems. Anyway, here is some background information on Microsoft's terrible Console Window. Why are console windows limited to Lucida Console and raster fonts? http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/05/16/2659903.aspx Here is how you can add more fonts — but you are on your own (the words from Microsoft): http://support.microsoft.com/kb/247815 Regards, G. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] JVM backend and language restrictions
Hi, [I was asked this by somebody else] When using FPC's JVM backend... does that cause language restrictions? eg: limiting the usage of unsigned numbers and pointers when targeting the JVM? Regards, Graeme. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: JVM backend and language restrictions
On 11-7-2013 10:37, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > When using FPC's JVM backend... does that cause language restrictions? > eg: limiting the usage of unsigned numbers and pointers when targeting > the JVM? Has that person read this: http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/FPC_JVM/Language ? Groete, Reinier ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: Console Encoding in Windows (Local VS. UTF8)
On 10/07/2013 13:38, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > On 2013-07-10 11:19, Tomas Hajny wrote: >> >> Sure, but you can't select just any True Type fonts for console windows >> (only Lucida is offered in WinXP; > > And is so since Win95. Just amazing that Windows Console is so far > behind other platforms - it's rather ridiculous if you think about it. > > If I used Windows, I would install a different console application — > there must be better after-market ones out there. But yes, this probably > doesn't solve your or your clients problems. > I seriously doubt it... I mean, in the olden days, the cmd program was actually a fully/partially [delete inappropriate] DOS compatible virtual machine, starting with : being able to run real x86 mode programs... It wasn't a shell as *nix has, never was meant to be... You'd have more luck using DosBOX emulator these days... > Anyway, here is some background information on Microsoft's terrible > Console Window. > > > Why are console windows limited to Lucida Console and raster fonts? > > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/05/16/2659903.aspx > > Here is how you can add more fonts — but you are on your own (the words > from Microsoft): > > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/247815 > > > Regards, > G. > -L;) ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: JVM backend and language restrictions
On 2013-07-11 11:34, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > > Has that person read this: > http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/FPC_JVM/Language Thanks, I'll pass that on. Graeme. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: JVM backend and language restrictions
On 2013-07-11 11:34, Reinier Olislagers wrote: > > Has that person read this: > http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/FPC_JVM/Language Wow, things are really hard to find in the wiki. * No link to that page mentioned, from it's parent page http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/FPC_JVM * No mention of that link in the JVM category http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Category:JVM etc... No wonder we hear of so many people frustrated with not finding information about FPC (or Lazarus). This is now the second discussion in a week I have had with somebody new to FPC, that simply can't find information (both actually related to mobile development with FPC). Hell, I've used FPC since 2006 and I couldn't even find this info. Anyway, I'll do my bit and pass the URL mention on, and add links to the wiki. Regards, G. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: JVM backend and language restrictions
On 11 Jul 2013, at 15:07, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > On 2013-07-11 11:34, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >> >> Has that person read this: >> http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/FPC_JVM/Language > > > Wow, things are really hard to find in the wiki. > > * No link to that page mentioned, from it's parent page >http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/FPC_JVM That page /is/ linked from its parent page (at the bottom, under "More information" with the title "Supported language constructs and other programming information"). Jonas___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: JVM backend and language restrictions
On 7/11/2013 09:07, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: Wow, things are really hard to find in the wiki. this is true for all wikis... i've never found one that wasn't hard to get around on... i like the "what links here" links but have never seen a "this links where" one that shows the other pages the current one links to... you gotta already be on the page to find out what links to it but ya can't go the other way around... -- NOTE: No off-list assistance is given without prior approval. Please keep mailing list traffic on the list unless private contact is specifically requested and granted. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: JVM backend and language restrictions
On 11-7-2013 3:07, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > On 2013-07-11 11:34, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >> >> Has that person read this: >> http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/FPC_JVM/Language > > > Wow, things are really hard to find in the wiki. Searching the wiki for JVM worked just fine for me... Similar with other subjects. IMO, searching for things in the wiki is easier than searching the mailinglist archives or forums... but to each their own... ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: JVM backend and language restrictions
Am 11.07.2013 15:07, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys: > On 2013-07-11 11:34, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >> >> Has that person read this: >> http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/FPC_JVM/Language > > > Wow, things are really hard to find in the wiki. > > * No link to that page mentioned, from it's parent page > http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/FPC_JVM > * No mention of that link in the JVM category > http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Category:JVM > etc... > > No wonder we hear of so many people frustrated with not finding > information about FPC (or Lazarus). Is it so hard to google "fpc jvm language limitations" ? ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property? I think they should. One for the design itself and one for describing the usage at design or runtime. Smalltalk has it. Consider it a version of the Hint property but for the developer -- Frank Church === http://devblog.brahmancreations.com ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
> One for the design itself and one for describing the usage at design or runtime. Why put the burden on code? Something like this is the programmer's responsibility, no need to add more bloat to the final code. What the program doesn't use or the user doesn't see should never be in the executable. > Smalltalk has it Show me one example, what I know is that there's only one way to comment in Smalltalk and that makes use of class property. -- View this message in context: http://free-pascal-general.1045716.n5.nabble.com/Should-TObject-or-TComponent-have-a-Comment-property-tp5715746p5715747.html Sent from the Free Pascal - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Free pascal 1.0.6
Hi, I want to use Free Pascal 1.0.6 in windows XP Professional 32bit. I know to ask some questions about that. Are there some stability problems with that version(compiler, IDE, debugger, ...)? If there are can I make some changes to make it stable(for example to edit the properties of the shortcut). ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Free pascal 1.0.6
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:14:09 +0200 Matúš Kudláč wrote: > Hi, > > > I want to use Free Pascal 1.0.6 in windows XP Professional 32bit. I > know to ask some questions about that. Are there some stability problems > with that version(compiler, IDE, debugger, ...)? If there are can I make > some changes to make it stable(for example to edit the properties of the > shortcut). Why not use 2.6.2? It is free. No update fee, full version, with source. Mattias ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Free pascal 1.0.6
I have a reason why i need version 1.0.6(it is not personal reason I shouldnt write here about it) thats why I want to know if it is stable(all parts compiler, ide, debugger, ...) On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:35 PM, Mattias Gaertner < nc-gaert...@netcologne.de> wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:14:09 +0200 > Matúš Kudláč wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I want to use Free Pascal 1.0.6 in windows XP Professional 32bit. I > > know to ask some questions about that. Are there some stability problems > > with that version(compiler, IDE, debugger, ...)? If there are can I make > > some changes to make it stable(for example to edit the properties of the > > shortcut). > > Why not use 2.6.2? It is free. No update fee, full version, with source. > > Mattias > ___ > fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@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
[fpc-pascal] Re: Free pascal 1.0.6
Older versions are never free of bugs (that's one of the reason why the next version appears), and even worse, it looks like there's no trace of bug reports for version as old as 1.0.6 (>10 years). Just try everything yourself, and if something is wrong, feel free to fix yourself (the source is open after all). -- View this message in context: http://free-pascal-general.1045716.n5.nabble.com/Free-pascal-1-0-6-tp5715748p5715751.html Sent from the Free Pascal - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
On 11 July 2013 23:07, Benito van der Zander wrote: > Annotations like in Java would be nice... > > > On 07/11/2013 10:22 PM, vfclists . wrote: > > Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property? > > I think they should. One for the design itself and one for describing the > usage at design or runtime. > > Smalltalk has it. > > Consider it a version of the Hint property but for the developer > > -- > Frank Church > > === > http://devblog.brahmancreations.com > > > -- > ___ > Lazarus mailing > listLazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.orghttp://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus > > > > -- > ___ > Lazarus mailing list > laza...@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org > http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus > > This attitude which exists in the Pascal community needs to end. I say Pascal not FreePascal because when I examine a lot of free Delphi libraries I see the same thing. Lots and lots of code and not a comment in sight. It makes stuff needlessly difficult. The simple fact is documentation is never going to happen because no one has time to create it with separate tools, not even the people writing the code themselves. Coding time is the best time for documentation because that is when the intent of the code is clear and fresh in the developers mind, and incurs minimal additional cost. After all it takes barely a minute or two to describe a function, and the same parsing tools compiling the code can pull out the comments and create documentation stubs if there is a need to flesh them out further, eg with examples etc Even a lot of the funded open source libraries don't have the resources to create proper documentation. If you take Delphi for instance, since Turbo Pascal, Delphi 7 etc the quality of documentation has gone down and these are companies that are well funded. Instead of doing the simple thing a purist attitude has been adopted which never does anyone any good. It is time developers learn to treat other developers as consumers not people who are supposed to RTFC or RTFM. Developers are people who are supposed to put parts together just by examining the function parameters and the function descriptions rather than wade through loads of procedure definitions and sample code full of similar sounding and confusing names. Enough digression - if considered carefully a comment about the purpose of an object belongs in the object definition itself. Why should interrogation about an object's purpose be handled by a whole subsystem of code which has precisely nothing to do with the object, ie the operating system, a help displaying program, a filename which is the help document, as well as a search string which is the object's name? Multiply that by the variety of help displaying programs for each operating system, then by the number of operating systems available then you can see how ridiculous the whole concept is. Just bureaucracy piled on bureaucracy and attachment to ill thought out convention and tradition. There is never a direct link between an object and the help display programs available on the operating system. There is a totally insane disconnect here. The Smalltalk guys got it right. There can be an options to strip the comments out in the final deliverable just like the debugging information. -- Frank Church === http://devblog.brahmancreations.com ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: [Lazarus] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013 07:07:05 +0100 "vfclists ." wrote: > This attitude which exists in the Pascal community needs to end. Not really. R. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: JVM backend and language restrictions
On 2013-07-11 20:20, Florian Klaempfl wrote: > > Is it so hard to google "fpc jvm language limitations" ? Yes, especially if your internet has been down for 3/4 of the day [2 days in a row]. G. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Free pascal 1.0.6
On 2013-07-11 22:35, Mattias Gaertner wrote: > > Why not use 2.6.2? It is free. No update fee, full version, with source. I think maybe he is getting confused with FPC and Lazarus versions. Maybe he is referring to Lazarus 1.0.6 release? Regards, - Graeme - ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Re: [fpc-devel] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property?
User programmer can add it to Tobject via object helpers, at least in Delphi, so my answer to this question would be: no. From: vfclists . Sent: Thursday, 11 July 2013 22:22 To: Lazarus mailing list ; FPC developers' list ; FPC-Pascal users discussions Subject: [fpc-devel] Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property? Should TObject or TComponent have a Comment property? I think they should. One for the design itself and one for describing the usage at design or runtime. Smalltalk has it. Consider it a version of the Hint property but for the developer -- Frank Church === http://devblog.brahmancreations.com ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-de...@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
