Am Freitag, den 08.12.2006, 21:40 +0100 schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
>
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Marc Santhoff wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > is anyone aware of a UML tool capable of making class diagrams and state
> > diagrams and emitting fpc compilable pascal code (or at least being
> > configurable to
Am Freitag, den 08.12.2006, 19:05 -0200 schrieb Felipe Monteiro de
Carvalho:
> On 12/8/06, Marc Santhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > is anyone aware of a UML tool capable of making class diagrams and state
> > diagrams and emitting fpc compilable pascal code (or at least being
> > configurable t
Hi,
I've got some funny problem here. The program compiled well with fpc up
to version 1.9.4. I haven't touched it for a while and now it fails with
fpc 2.0.2.
The source snippet in queston is:
function TStorable.generateID: integer;
begin
//writeln(GetEpochTime); does not work anymore
result :=
>> Try this.
>> http://bdn.borland.com/article/22576
NewInstance/FreeInstance is what I would have recommended as well.
> Maybe we should include an implementation in FPC by default ?
How ? The article works as-is AFAIK.
Btw, I think singletons are nonsense too. Why is a global variable evil,
On 12/8/06, Marc Santhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
is anyone aware of a UML tool capable of making class diagrams and state
diagrams and emitting fpc compilable pascal code (or at least being
configurable to do so)?
I did a quick search and found this:
http://www.modelmakertools.com/modelmak
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Marc Santhoff wrote:
> Hi,
>
> is anyone aware of a UML tool capable of making class diagrams and state
> diagrams and emitting fpc compilable pascal code (or at least being
> configurable to do so)?
I think Umbrello (part of KDE) can do this. It can save everything as XML,
Daniël Mantione wrote:
>
> Op Fri, 8 Dec 2006, schreef Micha Nelissen:
>
>> Btw, I think singletons are nonsense too. Why is a global variable evil,
>> and a singleton class not ?
>
> Well, a singleton can hide and/or protect its private data.
Not more than a global variable of the same class t
Hi,
is anyone aware of a UML tool capable of making class diagrams and state
diagrams and emitting fpc compilable pascal code (or at least being
configurable to do so)?
TIA,
Marc
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists
Op Fri, 8 Dec 2006, schreef Micha Nelissen:
> Btw, I think singletons are nonsense too. Why is a global variable evil,
> and a singleton class not ?
Well, a singleton can hide and/or protect its private data.
Actually, a unit is a singleton. The procedures are the methodes, the
interface decl
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>> Try this.
>> http://bdn.borland.com/article/22576
NewInstance/FreeInstance is what I would have recommended as well.
> Maybe we should include an implementation in FPC by default ?
How ? The article works as-is AFAIK.
Btw, I think singletons are nonsense too. Why i
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, George Birbilis wrote:
> > The latest issue of Linux Journal features an article about
> > Pixel (By Pavel Kanzelsberger).
> > It gives it a very good comment. Pity it's not mentioned that
> > it's written using FPC.
> > (the article is written by a writer/publisher, not a pr
Am Freitag, den 08.12.2006, 10:50 +0200 schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
> Bottom line: How can we hide the constructor of a class? As far as I
> can see you cannot decrease the visibility of a method compared to
> it's inherited class. Why shouldn't we be allowed to? C++, C# does!
>
> I found this by
On 12/8/06, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Does anyone know a good revision that works with Lazarus-WinCE?
A few weeks ago I experimented and found out that fpc 5389 and Lazarus
10204 worked for me on arm-wince. I'm sticking to these revisions for
the time being, making
Hi,
5191 works very well for me.
Gabor
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Hello,
I was testing fpc revisions for wince, based on the page:
http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/Tested_Unstable_Revisions
I first tryed 5431, but it doesn´t compile correctly.
Next I tryed 5370. Everything compiles fine, but when I tested a hello
world lazarus application it runs, but
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 12/8/06, TOndrej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/8/06, Graeme Geldenhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still don't know why we can't decrease visibility in Free Pascal.
> Is there some internal language design that prevents it?
A class definition (or at least its
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Steve Williams wrote:
> > I found this by trying to implement a True Singleton in Free Pascal /
> > Delphi. For those that don't know, a Singleton is a Design Pattern
> > that allows only one instance of a class. It seems it is impossible
> > to do in Free Pascal / Delphi.
> On 8 dec 2006, at 10:55, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>
> > I still don't know why we can't decrease visibility in Free Pascal.
> > Is there some internal language design that prevents it?
>
> At least Borland explicitly says you cannot do that:
>http://info.borland.com/techpubs/delphi/delphi5/
> I found this by trying to implement a True Singleton in Free Pascal /
> Delphi. For those that don't know, a Singleton is a Design Pattern
> that allows only one instance of a class. It seems it is impossible
> to do in Free Pascal / Delphi. :-(
Try this.
http://bdn.borland.com/article/22576
Hi,
The latest issue of Linux Journal features an article about Pixel (By Pavel
Kanzelsberger).
It gives it a very good comment. Pity it's not mentioned that it's written
using FPC.
(the article is written by a writer/publisher, not a programmer).
For the Lazarus users: Pixel is written using a
> I'm not even sure if there is a language which allows demoting
> visibility of inherited class members. It would seem odd to me. Just
> my 2c, of course. ;-)
C++, C#, VB.Net are three I know of. I think Java also allows it.
In these languages, AFAIK, it's allowed, the compiler generates a
wa
On 8 dec 2006, at 14:03, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
There is a lot of things in life we shouldn't do, but we do. :-)
At least give us the choice, maybe via a compiler directive and keep
the compiler warning in place. That way we can use it responsibly
when required,
This is a generic argument
Graeme Geldenhuys schreef:
On 12/8/06, Jonas Maebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quote:
"You should not change the access modifier for inherited members."
So it's possible but discouraged, and they give warnings (and
sometimes errors) for it with the recommendation "Do not exclude a
warning from
On 12/8/06, Jonas Maebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quote:
"You should not change the access modifier for inherited members."
So it's possible but discouraged, and they give warnings (and
sometimes errors) for it with the recommendation "Do not exclude a
warning from this rule."
There is a lot
On 8 dec 2006, at 13:44, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
I'm not even sure if there is a language which allows demoting
visibility of inherited class members. It would seem odd to me. Just
my 2c, of course. ;-)
C++, C#, VB.Net are three I know of.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms182332(
On 12/8/06, TOndrej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/8/06, Graeme Geldenhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still don't know why we can't decrease visibility in Free Pascal.
> Is there some internal language design that prevents it?
A class definition (or at least its parts visible from outside)
On 12/8/06, Graeme Geldenhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I still don't know why we can't decrease visibility in Free Pascal.
Is there some internal language design that prevents it?
A class definition (or at least its parts visible from outside) can be
understood as a kind of contract. If you h
On 8 dec 2006, at 10:55, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
I still don't know why we can't decrease visibility in Free Pascal.
Is there some internal language design that prevents it?
At least Borland explicitly says you cannot do that:
http://info.borland.com/techpubs/delphi/delphi5/oplg/classes.h
On 12/8/06, Vincent Snijders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think the solution is to create a public constructor which throws an
NotImplemented exception or something like that.
Ok, that works, or at least stops a developer from trying to create a
instance directly. In the exception message, I m
Graeme Geldenhuys schreef:
On 12/8/06, Vincent Snijders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe I am analyzing your output wrong, but to me it seems as if the
contructor of
TObject is called in the third case. printdata seems to print an empty
text.
So the protected contructor is unreachable, but th
On 12/8/06, Vincent Snijders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe I am analyzing your output wrong, but to me it seems as if the contructor
of
TObject is called in the third case. printdata seems to print an empty text.
So the protected contructor is unreachable, but the public constructor in
TObj
Graeme Geldenhuys schreef:
Bottom line: How can we hide the constructor of a class? As far as I
can see you cannot decrease the visibility of a method compared to
it's inherited class. Why shouldn't we be allowed to? C++, C# does!
I found this by trying to implement a True Singleton in Free Pa
Bottom line: How can we hide the constructor of a class? As far as I
can see you cannot decrease the visibility of a method compared to
it's inherited class. Why shouldn't we be allowed to? C++, C# does!
I found this by trying to implement a True Singleton in Free Pascal /
Delphi. For those th
Lot of thanks to alll for your answers !
I'll now try to make best use of them.
Dominique.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
34 matches
Mail list logo
