> the main thing.
>
> As far as I understand the proposal the main point for this construct is
> the use in iterable container classes (implementing a certain
> interface). And there it can show it's advantages (or what I think that
> are advantages):
>
> Instead of a very longish (syntax made
Hello,
>>
>>Probably this also gives some additional opportunities for code
>>optimizations.
>
> Well, I bet people would cry if the iterator works randomly and not
> element by element :)
Don't know why you're so focused at this point, but certainly, yes,
they would =) but as I already mentioned,
FPC/Lazarus is such a nice software. I started using it one year ago.
Although they say it is "under development" it works very well!
In addition, there is the comunity... Whenever there is a problem, I
can just send an email to the list and often, someone will give me some
tips or
Quoting Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>Interfaces are part of 2.0 but mainly to be dephi compatible.
> >>
> >
> >
> > You mean that 20% of functionality of delphi interfaces that you currently
> support?
>
> Well, those 20% cover 80% of interface usage.
> 9x/ME is another story, the console implementation of 9x/ME is poor. I
> think the best option for 9x/ME users is 1.0.10/go32v2.
I'd say - go for Lazarus!
www.lazarus.freepascal.org
It's a great IDE, and it actually gets the job done.
I am using it for a while now.
Cheers
Mike
__
Gergely MOLNAR wrote:
> hi!
>
> Anybody knows why fpc win32 IDE consumes much cpu time on windows me (and
> also win xp).
At least for me it doesn't on XP and I never heard that it does on XP.
9x/ME is another story, the console implementation of 9x/ME is poor. I
think the best option for 9x/ME
Thomas Schatzl wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think I have to make some things more clear why I am in favor of
> that "foreach":
>
> Thomas Schatzl schrieb:
>
Features being developed now are:
MI interfaces 90% (MI=multiple inheritance)
Inclasses 15% (embedded classes)
foreach 0% (
Quoting Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Like first if it wasn't your last paragraph, I wouldn't even bother to answer.
You're obviously taking this thing as pissing contest. (you can spare me about
using words like this on mailing list, you last paragraph is worth it, and I
don't care if
Hello,
I think I have to make some things more clear why I am in favor of
that "foreach":
Thomas Schatzl schrieb:
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 use
hi!
Anybody knows why fpc win32 IDE consumes much cpu time on windows me (and
also win xp). Are there some special settings, or any configs to avoid this?
Thank you!
-G
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freep
Containers? Hello, that's why I'm implementing box type. Everything is
doable,
you know the array or set, classes in other languages just specify interface
IEnumerable, and they support for each. As I said I don't care if any of my
changes gets into fpc tree. If you like it, you can have it, as f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Interfaces are part of 2.0 but mainly to be dephi compatible.
>>
>
>
> You mean that 20% of functionality of delphi interfaces that you currently
> support?
Well, those 20% cover 80% of interface usage. The most important where
interfaces are used is COM importing an
Quoting Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [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
Hello,
everything below is imho as usual... ;)
Florian Klaempfl schrieb:
(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
14 matches
Mail list logo
