Re: [fpc-pascal] java programmer

2005-05-21 Thread Nico Aragón
El Sábado, 21 de Mayo de 2005 17:10, Tony Pelton escribió: > minimally, an automatically resizing array implementation and a Hashtable ? Some time ago I used Barry Kelly's hash table implementation. It worked very well for me. You can download it from Torry's: http://delphi.icm.edu.pl/ftp/

Re: [fpc-pascal]

2005-05-05 Thread Nico Aragón
El Jueves, 5 de Mayo de 2005 05:49, Anandu R Suri escribió: > 2. Since my Operating System will be Object Oriented, the compilation > consists of calling a FPC_HELP_CONTRUCTOR which in turn calls the built in > AsmGetMem function. But during the system initialization process there will > be no mem

Re: [fpc-pascal] FPC for Win32 and memory

2005-04-27 Thread Nico Aragón
El Miércoles, 27 de Abril de 2005 17:10, Pianoman escribió: > Hello , How can I access memory outside of my process for example to > monitor some other process? You should execute the process that you want to debug using the debug API. I've searched for "win32 api create process debug" in Goo

Re: [fpc-pascal] undefining multiple defines

2005-03-03 Thread Nico Aragón
El Jueves, 3 de Marzo de 2005 01:56, Marc Santhoff escribió: > this is used to include some dependant functions from only one central > include file holding all possible versions. And it has to work from the > command line or makefile. Then you can write a program (invoked from the command line or

Re: [fpc-pascal] Win32 API - Scroll Bar inactive

2004-12-23 Thread Nico Aragón
El Martes, 9 de Noviembre de 2004 08:08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribiste: > I am new to Windows programming so please bear with me if it is some > trivial mistake. In my humble opinion, the mistake is using plain Windows API :-) Unless you have a very good reason, it's better to use a higher level l

Re: [fpc-pascal] Known issue with 1.9.4 [2004/05/30] for i386 on Linux?

2004-09-30 Thread Nico Aragón
Hello, On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:23:13 -0700 (PDT), Alan Mead wrote: >> while ( (i<=Length(fmt)) and (NOT fmt[i] IN ['0'..'9']) ) do >> inc(i); >First, it seems improper for any syntax to compile (i.e., to fail to >raise a syntax error) and then not execute. It compiles because it has the meanin