Am 2016-02-15 um 18:21 schrieb Andreas Schneider:
> Am 2016-02-14 12:42, schrieb Jürgen Hestermann:
>> Here we differ:
>> I expect that a documentation *fully* explains
>> a behaviour of a certain function (or something else),
>> not just some part of it.
> IMHO that would be insane. To a programm
Am 2016-02-14 12:42, schrieb Jürgen Hestermann:
Here we differ:
I expect that a documentation *fully* explains
a behaviour of a certain function (or something else),
not just some part of it.
IMHO that would be insane. To a programmer (like you and me) the RTL and
the Compiler are just interfa
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Am 2016-02-11 um 14:21 schrieb Sven Barth:
If they are just learning the language then they shouldn't poke around in
the core units anyway. That's what the documentation and help is for.
Back when I started learning TP I didn't have the internet
Am 2016-02-11 um 14:21 schrieb Sven Barth:
> If they are just learning the language then they shouldn't poke around in the
core units anyway. That's what the documentation and help is for.
> Back when I started learning TP I didn't have the internet and I didn't have
the sources of the units. I
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016 05:10:55 -0500
Anthony Walter wrote:
>[...]
> Additionally, and in a different scenario, when the identifier IS defined
> and several units are in the uses clause the goto declaration can jump to
> an include file without any information pertaining to which of the units is
> i
On 02/11/2016 06:51 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt hat am 11. Februar 2016 um 04:27
geschrieben:
[...]
Lazarus IDE shows a tooltip when you hover over an identifier with the mouse.
I suspect it will take one on the team less than
Am 11.02.2016 11:41 schrieb "Anthony Walter" :
>
> > This won't be changed. Period.
>
> Sven, not to be argumentative, but you do get that for a long time
programmers have learned how to write code and use libraries by examining
them? My goal is simply to make it easier for the people who would wan
On 2016-02-11 11:51, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> It's a coder... It's a hacker... it's SuperMattias !
:-D LOL
G.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt hat am 11. Februar 2016 um 04:27
geschrieben:
[...]
Lazarus IDE shows a tooltip when you hover over an identifier with the mouse.
I suspect it will take one on the team less than 10-minutes to add the unit
name to the tooltip, i
> Michael Van Canneyt hat am 11. Februar 2016 um 04:27
> geschrieben:
>[...]
> Lazarus IDE shows a tooltip when you hover over an identifier with the mouse.
> I suspect it will take one on the team less than 10-minutes to add the unit
> name to the tooltip, in addition to the package and source fi
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Anthony Walter wrote:
This won't be changed. Period.
Sven, not to be argumentative,
Funny.
You _are_ argumentative, considering the answers you got and number of posts :-)
(no offense intended)
but you do get that for a long time
programmers have learned how to writ
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Anthony Walter wrote:
Michael, a question:
How much of the interface section of units differ per platform? Is it 1% of
the code? Is it 5% of the code? With the xml2 unit it's 0%, yet all of the
declarations are nested in several layers of include files:
Numbers are irre
> This won't be changed. Period.
Sven, not to be argumentative, but you do get that for a long time
programmers have learned how to write code and use libraries by examining
them? My goal is simply to make it easier for the people who would want to
pick up and start using Lazarus. Organizing thing
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
he fact that you're the first to complain in 20 years (at least I cannot
remember any others, and I've been around for a while) gives you an indication
of the relative importance of your problem.
I do share Anthony's (strong) dislike of include files (but I am not
Am 11.02.2016 00:23 schrieb "Anthony Walter" :
>
> For those who didn't understand what I meant by using regions in the
interface section rather than include files, here is an image of what is
essentially in SysUtils currently:
>
> http://cache.getlazarus.org/images/sysutils-include.gif
>
> Notice
Michael, a question:
How much of the interface section of units differ per platform? Is it 1% of
the code? Is it 5% of the code? With the xml2 unit it's 0%, yet all of the
declarations are nested in several layers of include files:
http://cache.getlazarus.org/images/xml2-unit.gif
http://cache.get
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 2016-02-10 19:20, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
You just need to look at the system or sysutils units from recent delphis to
see why include files are the better option,
As someone that doesn't have access to recent Delphi versions, would you
m
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Anthony Walter wrote:
What about the interface section includes and {$region} option I described.
Does anyone care to discuss that option? Please go back a few messages and
read what I wrote.
It is not an option.
As said: not everyone uses lazarus.
Michael.
___
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Anthony Walter wrote:
For those who didn't understand what I meant by using regions in the
interface section rather than include files, here is an image of what is
essentially in SysUtils currently:
You are forgetting that not everyone uses Lazarus. The RTL is part of Fr
For those who didn't understand what I meant by using regions in the
interface section rather than include files, here is an image of what is
essentially in SysUtils currently:
http://cache.getlazarus.org/images/sysutils-include.gif
Notice the unit file is opened the almost none of what it declar
Am 10.02.2016 21:03 schrieb "Anthony Walter" :
> But to ask again, what's the purpose of using include files for the
interface section of units when most everything in the interface sections
remain unchanged among different platforms? Surely we can move all those
the parts back to the unit interfac
In our previous episode, Tomas Hajny said:
> at platform level, sometimes it makes sense to use a common include file
> for a set of targets sharing a common set of characteristics (various MS
> Windows targets or Unix targets) in order to simplify the maintenance,
> etc. Trying to cover that in on
On Wed, February 10, 2016 22:04, Anthony Walter wrote:
> What about the interface section includes and {$region} option I
> described.
> Does anyone care to discuss that option? Please go back a few messages and
> read what I wrote.
I don't get your $region idea, but as a maintainer of one of the
What about the interface section includes and {$region} option I described.
Does anyone care to discuss that option? Please go back a few messages and
read what I wrote.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.o
On 2016-02-10 19:45, Juha Manninen wrote:
> Thus, Lazarus editor fully understands include files unlike Delphi' editor.
The knock-on affect of include files, is that pascal parsers are much
more complex to write. Luckily we already have quite a few pascal
parsers available, which already work with
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys <
mailingli...@geldenhuys.co.uk> wrote:
> On 2016-02-10 19:20, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > You just need to look at the system or sysutils units from recent
> delphis to
> > see why include files are the better option,
> As someone that doesn't
On 2016-02-10 19:12, Anthony Walter wrote:
> I think the thing is I can't help but feel there should be a better system
> for organizing implementations for different systems.
Often some clever usage of design patterns can help, but more often than
not, using include files are just a faster and ea
On 2016-02-10 19:20, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> You just need to look at the system or sysutils units from recent delphis to
> see why include files are the better option,
As someone that doesn't have access to recent Delphi versions, would you
mind sharing a small example if you can. I'm not a
> Sven Barth hat am 10. Februar 2016 um 15:09
> geschrieben:
> [...]
> > The {%...} directive is a comment in other contexts and can be used safely.
>
> What about include files included by other include files?
That is no problem for the MainUnit directive.
The directive tells the codetools the
Oh and when the MainUnit directive is included at the top of an include
file, how does this affect include files where the declaration is another
include files, or include files which next other include files?
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.
Juha,
Okay then, maybe everyone should make a mental note and remember add the
MainUnit directive to the include files they are editing if it doesn't
already exist.
But to ask again, what's the purpose of using include files for the
interface section of units when most everything in the interface
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Anthony Walter wrote:
> And could the IDE be enhanced to should which unit is
> ultimately including a file? Obviously the CodeTools already knows, it was
> able to deduce the identifier exists and that it has a declaration by
> looking through the units in the use
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Anthony Walter wrote:
Thanks everyone for taking notice in the include file problem. I'm note
sure about other people, but to me its a problem that sometimes limits me
from following the source code. Ideally there should be one file per unit
with an interface section and a
Thanks everyone for taking notice in the include file problem. I'm note
sure about other people, but to me its a problem that sometimes limits me
from following the source code. Ideally there should be one file per unit
with an interface section and an implementation section and no include
files, b
Am 10.02.2016 15:55 schrieb "Juha Manninen" :
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Sven Barth
wrote:
> > What about include files included by other include files?
>
> Ok, that is a nasty situation. I think it should be avoided.
Welcome to the RTL. ;)
Regards,
Sven
___
On Wed, 10 Feb 2016, Juha Manninen wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
What about include files included by other include files?
Ok, that is a nasty situation. I think it should be avoided.
Happens regularly in the RTL units, though.
Michael.
__
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
> What about include files included by other include files?
Ok, that is a nasty situation. I think it should be avoided.
Juha
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.fr
In our previous episode, Juha Manninen said:
[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Vojt?ch ?ih?k wrote:
> > There exists IDE directive
> >
> > {%MainUnit ***.pas}
> >
> > and include files should contain it.
>
> Yes, that is the solution for Anthony's pro
Am 10.02.2016 14:09 schrieb "Juha Manninen" :
>
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Vojtěch Čihák
wrote:
> > There exists IDE directive
> >
> > {%MainUnit ***.pas}
> >
> > and include files should contain it.
>
> Yes, that is the solution for Anthony's problem. Most include files
> used by LCL unit
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:01 AM, Vojtěch Čihák wrote:
> There exists IDE directive
>
> {%MainUnit ***.pas}
>
> and include files should contain it.
Yes, that is the solution for Anthony's problem. Most include files
used by LCL units have it but FPC libraries may not.
When the directive is set, L
> So my question is, how do the rest of you deal with include files and
locating the unit including them?
I don't know what "deal" here refers to, so I can't answer that. I seldom
use include files except when I have to deal with what the compiler/rtl
face: platform dependent implementation of cer
On Mi, 2016-02-10 at 05:10 -0500, Anthony Walter wrote:
> Marc,
>
> Your suggestions only work if a unit declaring the function is in your uses
> clauses. In the scenario I described that is clearly not the case.
>
> Additionally, and in a different scenario, when the identifier IS defined
> and
Am 10.02.2016 11:11 schrieb "Anthony Walter" :
>
> Marc,
>
> Your suggestions only work if a unit declaring the function is in your
uses clauses. In the scenario I described that is clearly not the case.
>
> Additionally, and in a different scenario, when the identifier IS defined
and several units
Marc,
Your suggestions only work if a unit declaring the function is in your uses
clauses. In the scenario I described that is clearly not the case.
Additionally, and in a different scenario, when the identifier IS defined
and several units are in the uses clause the goto declaration can jump to
On 2016-02-10 00:01, Vojtěch Čihák wrote:
> There exists IDE directive
> {%MainUnit ***.pas}
> and include files should contain it.
That is not an include file requirement, plus that functionality is a
Lazarus-only trick. Any other editor and the FPC compiler sees that as a
simple code comment. Pl
On Di, 2016-02-09 at 18:46 -0500, Anthony Walter wrote:
> Ralf,
>
> A couple of points.
>
> 1) As I explained there are times when I, and probably other people as
> well, need to find the declaration of a function, constant, record, or some
> other identifier. We may not know if the function even
Sven,
Thanks for clarifying that particular issue. I assumed the functions had
been moved to System but wasn't sure when.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Am 10.02.2016 00:32 schrieb "Ralf Quint" :
>
> On 2/9/2016 2:58 PM, Anthony Walter wrote:
>>
>> I really don't like the include files with Lazarus and Free Pascal for
the following reason:
>>
>> How the am I supposed to know which file is including an include
file?
>>
>> Often times I am tryin
ns"
Datum: 10.02.2016 00:06
Předmět: [fpc-pascal] Please someone explain this to me
I really don't like the include files with Lazarus and Free Pascal for the following
reason:How the am I supposed to know which file is including an include
file?Often times I am trying to find a funct
Ralf,
A couple of points.
1) As I explained there are times when I, and probably other people as
well, need to find the declaration of a function, constant, record, or some
other identifier. We may not know if the function even exists or has been
declared in Pascal, for example when attempting to
On 2/9/2016 2:58 PM, Anthony Walter wrote:
I really don't like the include files with Lazarus and Free Pascal for
the following reason:
How the am I supposed to know which file is including an include
file?
Often times I am trying to find a function or class or some other
identifier an
I really don't like the include files with Lazarus and Free Pascal for the
following reason:
How the am I supposed to know which file is including an include file?
Often times I am trying to find a function or class or some other
identifier and I search files on disk for the name. Then it tu
52 matches
Mail list logo
