Anthony Walter wrote:
> "FreePascal did this before something else so we shouldn't change"
>
> Forgetting the whole argument about who was actually first, I have to
> ask what difference does it make?
I'm not a FPC developer, just a FPC user. But even I can see the logic
behind there choice.
FP
I improperly replied. Let me try that again.
As a follow up, here are a few generic type declaration examples
lifted directly out of the CodeGear pdf Jonas was thoughtful enough to
link:
*Please Note* These examples do not include generic constraints which
I believe are needed to work effecti
As a follow up, here are a few generic type declaration examples
lifted directly out of the CodeGear pdf Jonas was thoughtful enough to
link:
*Please Note* These examples do not include generic constraints which
I believe are needed to work effectively with generics. Generic
constraints can be fou
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
> Well, in
>
> Var
> A : Integer;
>
> The 'Var' is strictly speaking also redundant, as the : is used only in
> variable declarations. But the 'var' makes it easier to read, and Pascal is
> a verbose language. Additionally, the parsing
On 22 Nov 2009, at 21:17, Pascal wrote:
> Have you some documentation available on Internet?
> The one I found is Delphi Object Pascal Language Guide, version 7, 2002.
> http://docs.codegear.com/products/rad_studio/delphi7/D7_DevelopersGuide.pdf
> Generic types are not described in it ;-(
http:/
Hello Anthony.
Thanks for your proposal.
I'm a bit surprised of Delphi chosen syntax because
"TList=class ..." breaks Pascal usual type declaration
"Id=type;" and "=" may be confused with greater or equal operator.
Have you some documentation available on Internet?
The one I found is Delphi O
On 21 Nov 2009, at 14:20, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> I have been thinking along similar lines, and made an implementation for beep
> that works with a handler. It's not yet committed, as I was trying to make an
> LCL plugin which would work on Linux/X11.
Wouldn't it be better to do nothing by
On 22 Nov 2009, at 16:10, Anthony Walter wrote:
> n Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>>
>> Generics were developed in parallel in FPC and in Delphi, and both came up
>> with a different syntax.
>> The incompatibility was there from the start, it wasn't created afterwards.
>
>
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> > Version A repeats redundant information. Of couse TStack is
> > generic, it has those angle brackets after the identifier. They
> > wouldn't be legal in a type block unless it was a generic declaration.
> > Therefore the word generic is redunda
Ivo Steinmann wrote:
>>>
>> Thanks, I thought so.
>>
>> I am considering to write a C library (cdecl) to wrap the calls to the
>> C library(fastcall), but it doesn't feel right.
>>
>>
You can compile your c wrapper and lin
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009, Anthony Walter wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Apparantly it didn't sink in:-)
Oh it has sunk in, and I've come to expect it. I was/am only trying to
move the discussion beyond that point (which seems like a brick wall).
IMO a discus
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > Implementing something once or twice.
>
> Okay, but let's take these issues one by one rather than grouping them
> together. Is that more reasonable. Blocking off discussion about some
> feature after it has been started or implem
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> Apparantly it didn't sink in:-)
Oh it has sunk in, and I've come to expect it. I was/am only trying to
move the discussion beyond that point (which seems like a brick wall).
IMO a discussion would serve us better than stonewalling.
In our previous episode, Anthony Walter said:
> > Generics were developed in parallel in FPC and in Delphi, and both came up
> > with a different syntax.
> > The incompatibility was there from the start, it wasn't created afterwards.
>
> I am not trying to be a jerk or anything, but yes, I assure
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 6:15 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> Generics were developed in parallel in FPC and in Delphi, and both came up
> with a different syntax.
> The incompatibility was there from the start, it wasn't created afterwards.
Jonas,
I am not trying to be a jerk or anything, but yes, I
Dear All,
Wouldn't it be interesting to document somewhere the requirement that
inlined procedures need to be implemented BEFORE where they're called if
it's in the same unit?
Would it be a good idea if I changed the FPC online doc, but where would
that be, and also Lazarus' as well?
Best
Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 22 Nov 2009, at 10:10, Thierry Coq wrote:
I'm trying to use inline to remove unnecessary debugging code, such as the
following code, with FPC 2.3.1 on Windows, when compiling for production.
However when I compile the code, at O1 optimisation level (my default), the
c
Jonas Maebe wrote:
> unit tt;
>
> interface
>
> {$Inline on}
> type
> TForm1 = class
> private
> procedure DebugInfo; inline;
> public
> procedure DoSomething;
> end;
>
> Implementation
>
> procedure TForm1.DebugInfo;
> begin
> {$ifdef debug}
>DebugInfo
> {$endif}
> end;
>
> pr
Hello FPC-Pascal,
Sunday, November 22, 2009, 12:25:32 PM, you wrote:
JM> I guess the real case in which you observe that behaviour is
JM> more complicated, with circular dependencies between
JM> implementation units, or whereby the implementation of the
JM> "inline" routine appears only after it
Hi all
I've got a non-obvious class hierarchy with interfaces involved.
The problem is that, I thought "property ... implements ...;" construction
fully substitute for implementing interface methods in class itself, but now
it's just not true.
I get different results in case implements is used and
On 22 Nov 2009, at 10:10, Thierry Coq wrote:
> I'm trying to use inline to remove unnecessary debugging code, such as the
> following code, with FPC 2.3.1 on Windows, when compiling for production.
> However when I compile the code, at O1 optimisation level (my default), the
> call to DebugInfo
On 22 Nov 2009, at 02:56, Anthony Walter wrote:
> It would be a real shame to create more Delphi incompatibilities.
Generics were developed in parallel in FPC and in Delphi, and both came up with
a different syntax. The incompatibility was there from the start, it wasn't
created afterwards.
Hello,
I'm trying to use inline to remove unnecessary debugging code, such as
the following code, with FPC 2.3.1 on Windows, when compiling for
production.
However when I compile the code, at O1 optimisation level (my default),
the call to DebugInfo is still present in the generated assembler.
23 matches
Mail list logo
