On 2017-08-26 17:09, mar...@stack.nl wrote:
In our previous episode, nore...@z505.com said:
But it gets worse than that: even fpc/delphi's bool is not always
compatible (but is sometimes).
For example:
http://blog.delphi-jedi.net/2008/09/25/bool-boolean-and-integer/
When one must use Integers
On 2017-08-26 17:22, mar...@stack.nl wrote:
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
I think the programmer *must* worry about the details and must
definitely
NOT use the booleans for anything C related. That was my point.
The interface uses bool, either as param or in a structure.
On 2017-08-26 02:50, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
I thought all this BOOL mess was just meant to be able to interface
with C
libs slightly easier.
But, why is the BOOL in fpc/delphi not compatible with C BOOL, in that
it has different semantics?
One value lines up correct... but not always th
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> I think the programmer *must* worry about the details and must definitely
> NOT use the booleans for anything C related. That was my point.
The interface uses bool, either as param or in a structure. So what can you
do?
> Attempting to cater f
In our previous episode, nore...@z505.com said:
> But it gets worse than that: even fpc/delphi's bool is not always
> compatible (but is sometimes).
>
> For example:
> http://blog.delphi-jedi.net/2008/09/25/bool-boolean-and-integer/
>
> When one must use Integers to do boolean related programmin
On 26.08.2017 13:43, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I did read it.
>>>
>>> I think the programmer *must* worry about the details and must
>>> definitely
>>> NOT use the booleans for anything C related. That was my point.
>>>
>>> A
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
I did read it.
I think the programmer *must* worry about the details and must definitely
NOT use the booleans for anything C related. That was my point.
Attempting to cater for C code using BOOL or whatever type is misplaced.
C does not
On 26.08.2017 12:57, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Sven Barth wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Sorry for being naive. Why not simply use a boolean ?
>>>
>>> I thought all this BOOL mess was just meant to be able to interface
>>> with C
>>> libs slightly easier.
>>>
>>> Instead of
>>>
>>>
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Sven Barth wrote:
Sorry for being naive. Why not simply use a boolean ?
I thought all this BOOL mess was just meant to be able to interface with C
libs slightly easier.
Instead of
If (SomeCfunction()<>0) then
DoSomethingStupid;
it allows you to write - in appropriat
Am 26.08.2017 09:50 schrieb "Michael Van Canneyt" :
>
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
>
>> Am 26.08.2017 07:25 schrieb :
>>>
>>>
>>> What about the BOOL issue..
>>>
>>> We know that Boolean in fpc/delphi is not compatible with a C bool
>>>
>>> But it gets worse than that
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
Am 26.08.2017 07:25 schrieb :
What about the BOOL issue..
We know that Boolean in fpc/delphi is not compatible with a C bool
But it gets worse than that: even fpc/delphi's bool is not always
compatible (but is sometimes).
For example
Am 26.08.2017 07:25 schrieb :
>
> What about the BOOL issue..
>
> We know that Boolean in fpc/delphi is not compatible with a C bool
>
> But it gets worse than that: even fpc/delphi's bool is not always
compatible (but is sometimes).
>
> For example:
> http://blog.delphi-jedi.net/2008/09/25/bool-bo
12 matches
Mail list logo
