On 9 Nov 14, at 9:15, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Juha Manninen
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, my bad. We had a long discussion about this subject, Mattias
> > thought the info about FPC options should be maintained in FPC project. I
> > agreed because it is quite logical a
On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Juha Manninen
wrote:
> Sorry, my bad. We had a long discussion about this subject, Mattias
> thought the info about FPC options should be maintained in FPC project. I
> agreed because it is quite logical and makes sense. Why should help info
> about FPC options be
On Sun, 9 Nov 2014, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Martin Frb said:
path. The error message indicates that there is no such program. You
can't get more clear than that, I would think ?
Well to me this error says, this is the current supported list, probably
because this
In our previous episode, Martin Frb said:
> > path. The error message indicates that there is no such program. You
> > can't get more clear than that, I would think ?
>
> Well to me this error says, this is the current supported list, probably
> because this are all known (common) terminals at t
On 09/11/2014 09:18, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
What is there to look at ?
There must be one of the 8 (!) supported terminal programs in the
path. The error message indicates that there is no such program. You
can't get more clear than that, I would think ?
Well to me this error says, this
On 09/11/2014 11:25, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Yes, that's logical.
It seems Martin thinks that the compiler needs a terminal. Why
does the compiler use poNewConsole?
It is about starting the debugger (if I read the issue correct).
And actually, this is very old code, and has not been reviewed
In our previous episode, Mattias Gaertner said:
> > The indentation in fcl-process/src/unix/process.inc is a bit confusing,
> > but at first sight it's only required if poNewConsole is specified
> > (which is logical).
>
> Yes, that's logical.
>
> It seems Martin thinks that the compiler needs a
On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 12:12:16 +0100
Jonas Maebe wrote:
> On 09/11/14 11:00, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> > I'm curious. Why does fpc need a terminal?
>
> The indentation in fcl-process/src/unix/process.inc is a bit confusing,
> but at first sight it's only required if poNewConsole is specified
> (wh
On 09/11/14 11:00, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> I'm curious. Why does fpc need a terminal?
The indentation in fcl-process/src/unix/process.inc is a bit confusing,
but at first sight it's only required if poNewConsole is specified
(which is logical).
Jonas
__
On Sun, 9 Nov 2014 10:18:11 +0100 (CET)
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>[...]
> What is there to look at ?
>
> There must be one of the 8 (!) supported terminal programs in the path.
> The error message indicates that there is no such program.
> You can't get more clear than that, I would think ?
On Sunday, November 9, 2014, Dmitry Boyarintsev
wrote:
>
> Pardon me, but I actually opposed the idea to put any kind of changes to
> FPC help system.
> My reasoning - it would be an additional and annoying burden to fpc-team.
> As bug reports showing, help is not in sync with compiler features al
On Sat, 8 Nov 2014, Martin Frb wrote:
There is a bug report, where the user says he gets this error.
http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=27003#c79020
He may not have the latest Lazarus, and he still has to report his fpc
version, but terminal detection does not seem to have changed that
On Sunday, November 9, 2014, Dmitry Boyarintsev
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Juha Manninen > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:13 AM, Tomas Hajny > > wrote:
>> > If you mean that FPC itself should use a JSON file for generating the
>> > help, that doesn't sound like a good ide
It may be a duplicate of #19708, although I marked it as related.
Juha
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
14 matches
Mail list logo
