> > p.s. Also, Trustmaster one of the developers of PSP has already written a
> > small
> > server of his own in Pascal... I think he put it up on source forge. He
> > used that
> > with PSP a while back for some experiments.
> Just for anyone else who is interested.. The PSWS (Pretty Small Web S
> p.s. Also, Trustmaster one of the developers of PSP has already written a
> small
> server of his own in Pascal... I think he put it up on source forge. He used
> that
> with PSP a while back for some experiments.
>
Just for anyone else who is interested.. The PSWS (Pretty Small Web Server)
Pelton wrote:
> hi all,
>
> i'm trying to hone in on a toolkit to use to do some "console gui"
> development.
>
> something along the lines of the FP IDE, but not as complicated.
>
> cross platform as well hopefully ?
>
> i'm having trouble understanding what the deal-ey-o is with the "FV" li
Long answer (scroll down for shorter answer)
Depends on what version you are using...
If its a newer version (1.4.x or 1.5.x), did you take GZIP compression option
off in
the configuration file? (depending on which version of PSP you use, it will be
called
pwu.conf or psp.conf or psp.ini) Gzip
i don't know if i will get beat down for asking this question here ...
but i'll try.
i found a pascal web server :
http://www.ritlabs.com/en/products/tinyweb/
it supports CGI suppossedly.
if i try to get it to use a PSP CGI, the web server renders a response
that says the CGI didn't return anyt
hi all,
i'm trying to hone in on a toolkit to use to do some "console gui" development.
something along the lines of the FP IDE, but not as complicated.
cross platform as well hopefully ?
i'm having trouble understanding what the deal-ey-o is with the "FV" libs ?
is there a licensing issue her
Marc Santhoff wrote:
If you'd ask me: My wish would be to see fpc compiling programmes for
the BlackFin-CPUs and for the ECOS2 operating system, can this be
implemented, please? ;)
Marc
So the number of users of fpc is extended by two? three at most? :-)
Mark
_
> Am Sonntag, den 20.11.2005, 21:54 +1100 schrieb Moz:
> If you really need some new statement types you can
>
> - make patches for the compiler
> - or use a preprocessor
> - or use Smalltalk/Java/Eiffel/Python/Ruby (if you like Pascal better
> then ASM)
>
> If you'd ask me: My wish would be to s
Marco van de Voort wrote:
Lukas Gebauer wrote:
Look to next Pascal language enhancements
in Delphi-2006... (like operator overloads or class variables...)
we already have them in free pascal for a couple of years iirc and I've
never used them.
That's because they are quite l
Am Sonntag, den 20.11.2005, 21:54 +1100 schrieb Moz:
> Micha Nelissen said:
> > FPC will never support this, AFAIK. It doesn't really add anything new, it
> > just shortens the code somewhat. Only in toy examples is it nice,
>
> Could you expand this answer to cover the reasons why people might us
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Lukas Gebauer wrote:
enhancements in Delphi-2006... (like operator overloads or class
variables...)
... which has fpc for years :)
I didn't know that. How do I declare a class variable in fpc?
like this?
type
MyClass = class(TComponent)
private
class FClassV
Marco van de Voort wrote:
never used them.
That's because they are quite limited if you have dynamic, non garbage collected
objects.
Why? Use them with interfaces if you need garbage collection and it
works perfectly.
Because that is not the same. A fully GC language can optimize a lot
> >>>never used them.
> >
> >
> > That's because they are quite limited if you have dynamic, non garbage
> > collected
> > objects.
>
> Why? Use them with interfaces if you need garbage collection and it
> works perfectly.
Because that is not the same. A fully GC language can optimize a lot o
Marco van de Voort wrote:
Lukas Gebauer wrote:
Look to next Pascal language enhancements
in Delphi-2006... (like operator overloads or class variables...)
we already have them in free pascal for a couple of years iirc and I've
never used them.
That's because they are quite limited if you
> Lukas Gebauer wrote:
> >Look to next Pascal language enhancements
> >in Delphi-2006... (like operator overloads or class variables...)
> > we already have them in free pascal for a couple of years iirc and I've
> > never used them.
That's because they are quite limited if you have dynamic, non
Lukas Gebauer wrote:
foreach ... in ... do adds no additional abstraction layer. I consider
foreach usefull if it allows to create own iterators which are as fast as
walking a linked list with p:=p^.next; Especially since it then allows
e.g. to write iterators with data prefetching.
Just my tw
Lukas Gebauer wrote:
foreach ... in ... do adds no additional abstraction layer. I consider
foreach usefull if it allows to create own iterators which are as fast as
walking a linked list with p:=p^.next; Especially since it then allows
e.g. to write iterators with data prefetching.
Just
> foreach ... in ... do adds no additional abstraction layer. I consider
> foreach usefull if it allows to create own iterators which are as fast as
> walking a linked list with p:=p^.next; Especially since it then allows
> e.g. to write iterators with data prefetching.
Just my two cents:
For-in
> Micha Nelissen said:
> > FPC will never support this, AFAIK. It doesn't really add anything new, it
> > just shortens the code somewhat. Only in toy examples is it nice,
>
> Could you expand this answer to cover the reasons why people might use
> Pascal rather than assembly language? Your argume
Moz wrote:
Micha Nelissen said:
FPC will never support this, AFAIK. It doesn't really add anything new, it
just shortens the code somewhat. Only in toy examples is it nice,
Could you expand this answer to cover the reasons why people might use
Pascal rather than assembly language? Your argu
Micha Nelissen said:
> FPC will never support this, AFAIK. It doesn't really add anything new, it
> just shortens the code somewhat. Only in toy examples is it nice,
Could you expand this answer to cover the reasons why people might use
Pascal rather than assembly language? Your argument seems to
On 20 Nov 2005, at 10:57, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Would it be hard for the compiler to try to automatically convert
this new construct into an equivalent older one? .. So when it finds
for S in ArrayOfInteger do ...
it silently converts it to
for i := 0 to {Count} do
begin
S := Array
> Nobody uses it unless they are backporting from .NET. Simply because the
> hordes of win32 Delphi programmers still use D6 and D7.
And even greater is the horde of programmers still using Visual Studio 6.0.
tsc tsc tsc I just can´t figure out why some developers of IDEs
think that .NET sho
> I was also wondering HOW it would be done, but I just assumed that
> everything was easy for you guys :)
>
> Would it be hard for the compiler to try to automatically convert
> this new construct into an equivalent older one? .. So when it finds
>
> for S in ArrayOfInteger do ...
>
> it silen
> Which is faster, reading a file Character by Character, by Memory Block, or by
> StringList.text?
For the first test (char by char), have a look at settextbuf procedure.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepasca
25 matches
Mail list logo
