On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Jonas Maebe
wrote:
> And since this is now becoming a thread in which mostly things from the
> previous one are repeated, please also move it to the fpc-other list.
>
Of the forum:
http://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,31367.0.html
__
Am 04.02.2016 23:43 schrieb "Martin" :
>
> On 04/02/2016 22:13, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You mean like literally using "?" and ":" ?
>>
>>
>> Yes. As used in C-like languages.
>
>
> There was also voices for a more verbos
On 2016-02-04 22:25, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> You're more than welcome to donate. Shall I give you my IBAN ?
> Can't promise it's tax-deductible, though :-)
:-D
G.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepasca
On 04/02/2016 22:13, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
You mean like literally using "?" and ":" ?
Yes. As used in C-like languages.
There was also voices for a more verbose solution.
But introducing 2 new operators based on words (a-z, not
A test with two Linux (Ubuntu 14.04) PC's each with a 1Gbps NIC , with one PC
sending 300byte packets directly to the other PC (no switch involved) .
Each PC had a simple test program using Synapse : one PC sends UDP packets ,
the other PC receives UDP packets .
The throughput rate was 880Mbps w
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 2016-02-04 21:33, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
I'm also disappointed that my bank account doesn't contain millions.
But I learned to live with it :-)
Ah, you give up too soon. ;-)
You're more than welcome to donate. Shall I give you my IBAN ?
On 2016-02-04 21:33, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> I'm also disappointed that my bank account doesn't contain millions.
> But I learned to live with it :-)
Ah, you give up too soon. ;-)
Regards,
- Graeme -
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@list
On 2016-02-04 21:33, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> Samples of non-desirable constructs include:
Thanks goodness. Looking at some of your examples, that is a whole new
can of worms, and far from what I think the Pascal language stands for.
Regards,
- Graeme -
___
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
b) a ? b : c
From the people that responded in the core discussion, the majority was for
the a ? b : c syntax, or not adding at all (not all replied).
You mean like literally u
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
> b) a ? b : c
> From the people that responded in the core discussion, the majority was for
> the a ? b : c syntax, or not adding at all (not all replied).
You mean like literally using "?" and ":" ?
> If someone feels like submitting a
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
>
> Disappointed :(
>>
>
> Well, such is life. I'm also disappointed that my bank account doesn't
> contain millions. But I learned to live with it :-)
>
[...]
:-D
[...]
> That
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
Disappointed :(
Well, such is life.
I'm also disappointed that my bank account doesn't contain millions.
But I learned to live with it :-)
But all hope is not lost yet.
Why was it done? I thought that pretty much everyone was in fa
Hi,
I personally think that there's no place for democracy in compiler development.
It would lead to bloat. Although majority of people considered it useful, it
was not very pascalish.
Trunk is place for experiments and this one is over.
V.
_
2016-02-04 19:13 GMT-02:00 Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho <
felipemonteiro.carva...@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Mazola Winstrol
> wrote:
> > Lets wait for the Delphi implementation so, we will not start a new
> flame.
>
> You mean like "wait 5-10 years until they decide independent
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Mazola Winstrol wrote:
> Lets wait for the Delphi implementation so, we will not start a new flame.
You mean like "wait 5-10 years until they decide independently that
they want to do it" or are there serious plans for Delphi to support
this, say, in the next versi
2016-02-04 18:41 GMT-02:00 Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho <
felipemonteiro.carva...@gmail.com>:
> Disappointed :(
>
> Why was it done? I thought that pretty much everyone was in favor?
>
>
Due to the fact that we like flame, flame and flame
> It isn't very pascalish, that's true, but we could imple
Disappointed :(
Why was it done? I thought that pretty much everyone was in favor?
It isn't very pascalish, that's true, but we could implement it like
the proposed "inline if A then B else C" syntax... which is very
pascalish and cool.
thanks,
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
___
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 2:44 PM, John Lee wrote:
> luddite_clique 1 progressives 0
>
> Just wait for Delphi to implement this... speaking of which, why they've
not done it a long time ago?
They could, but probably didn't do that, for very likely the same reasons.
thanks,
Dmitry
__
On 2/4/16, John Lee wrote:
> luddite_clique 1 progressives 0
Please don't start a flame war.
Bart
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
luddite_clique 1 progressives 0
On 4 February 2016 at 19:25, Sven Barth wrote:
> Hello together!
>
> The IfThen() intrinsic has been removed again. There will be *no*
> replacement in the foreseeable future. This is not up for discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Sven
> ___
Hello together!
The IfThen() intrinsic has been removed again. There will be *no*
replacement in the foreseeable future. This is not up for discussion.
Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org
On 04/02/16 12:36, Serguei TARASSOV wrote:
I see, and it is what I said many times
And since this is now becoming a thread in which mostly things from the
previous one are repeated, please also move it to the fpc-other list.
Thanks,
Jonas
FPC mailing lists admin
___
On 04/02/2016 12:00, fpc-pascal-requ...@lists.freepascal.org wrote:
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 14:34:34 +0100
From: Sven Barth
Am 03.02.2016 12:11 schrieb "Serguei TARASSOV":
>Holy sh*t, ?a continue !:)
>Even if evaluation order will be assured and well documented, it doesn't make
sense!
>Example :
23 matches
Mail list logo
