Graeme Geldenhuys schreef:
On 29 April 2010 21:57, Vincent Snijders wrote:
I don't see the issue, it gets a bit more complicated, but not impossible. I
am just bad in ascii graphics, but I can imagine how it looks like.
I'm sure Michael will welcome your patch, and I'll be eager to see it to
On 29 April 2010 21:57, Vincent Snijders wrote:
>
> I don't see the issue, it gets a bit more complicated, but not impossible. I
> am just bad in ascii graphics, but I can imagine how it looks like.
I'm sure Michael will welcome your patch, and I'll be eager to see it too. ;-)
--
Regards,
Graeme Geldenhuys schreef:
On 29 April 2010 17:23, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Its got nothing to do with the latex package. Trying to describe the
inconsistent syntax of Hint Directives in a syntax diagram (like used
in the FPC Language Reference doc) just seems impossible. From what I
can conclu
On 29 April 2010 17:23, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> If you think there is a problem in the latex package, feel free to
> fix/enhance it.
Its got nothing to do with the latex package. Trying to describe the
inconsistent syntax of Hint Directives in a syntax diagram (like used
in the FPC Language
While I am not particularly leaning to either side on the "deprecated"
discussion, I found another "oddity" due to the single lookahead scenario
"strict" is allowed as identifier. the following does compile
var
strict: Integer;
BUT, because now e can have "strict private"; the following does
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> > And get better quality errormessages in return. Way more important IMHO.
>
> And we just ignore the docs that can't describe the syntax? :-)
If you think there is a problem in the latex package, feel free to
fix/enhance it.
__
Marco van de Voort het geskryf:
>
> And get better quality errormessages in return. Way more important IMHO.
And we just ignore the docs that can't describe the syntax? :-)
Regards,
- Graeme -
--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpg
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 29 April 2010 14:51, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Having a bigger lookahead makes a lot more things far more complex
epecially in combination with include files, macros, generics.
Why? You only apply the extra lookaheads where needed (code that
could be ambiguo
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> > Language: that parsing is possible using a single lookahead token.
> > (it makes for faster parsing)
>
> And because of that age old statement, we now have to live with
> inconsistent syntax.
And get better quality errormessages in return. Way
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:44 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>> Jonas Maebe het geskryf:
(...)
>
> Jonas tried to explain that this is not possible.
>
> Consider the following - what you propose - statements:
>
> Var
> A : Integer;
> deprecated : B
During my experiments with FPC, I had to to exactly that - support two
lookahead symbols - to implement (in)famous semicolon before 'else'.
One of problems I had was combination of macros and include files with
two lookahead symbols - I "fixed" it in a dirty way, but I'm not
completely sure that so
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
> On 29 April 2010 14:51, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>> Having a bigger lookahead makes a lot more things far more complex
>> epecially in combination with include files, macros, generics.
>
> Why?
Because you've always to take care of the possible extra lookahead. The
On 29 April 2010 14:48, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
> As far as I remember, this was one of the key strengths of the Pascal
> Language: that parsing is possible using a single lookahead token.
> (it makes for faster parsing)
And because of that age old statement, we now have to live with
inconsi
On 29 April 2010 14:51, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>
> Having a bigger lookahead makes a lot more things far more complex
> epecially in combination with include files, macros, generics.
Why? You only apply the extra lookaheads where needed (code that
could be ambiguous). All other parts of the cod
Michael Van Canneyt schrieb:
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>
>> On 29 April 2010 12:39, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>>>
>>> The compiler uses only a single lookahead token, while disambiguating
>>> your
>>> example would require two.
>>
>> I did look at the links you posted and sti
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 29 April 2010 12:39, Jonas Maebe wrote:
The compiler uses only a single lookahead token, while disambiguating your
example would require two.
I did look at the links you posted and still couldn't see the problem.
The paragraph above gives t
On 29 April 2010 12:39, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> The compiler uses only a single lookahead token, while disambiguating your
> example would require two.
I did look at the links you posted and still couldn't see the problem.
The paragraph above gives the key information - the FPC parses only
uses a
In our previous episode, ik said:
> > The compiler uses only a single lookahead token, while disambiguating your
> > example would require two.
> >
>
> I probably missing something here but how does the compiler knows about
> override, cdecl etc... directives in one pass ?
A procedure declaratio
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 13:39, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> On 29 Apr 2010, at 12:00, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>
> Michael Van Canneyt het geskryf:
>>
>>> Consider the following - what you propose - statements:
>>>
>>>
>>> Var
>>> A : Integer;
>>> deprecated : Boolean;
>>>
>>> The compiler cannot de
On 29 Apr 2010, at 12:00, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt het geskryf:
Consider the following - what you propose - statements:
Var
A : Integer;
deprecated : Boolean;
The compiler cannot decide whether the 'deprecated' is a modifier
or the
Yes it can, because in your exa
Michael Van Canneyt het geskryf:
>
> Jonas tried to explain that this is not possible.
Yes, but it is still very easy to detect the difference... I'll use your
example:
> Consider the following - what you propose - statements:
>
> Var
>A : Integer;
>deprecated : Boolean;
>
> The comp
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Jonas Maebe het geskryf:
Conversely, adding it before the semicolon in case of procedure/
function declarations would be inconsistent with how other modifiers
have always been used there.
I don't have problems with it's usage in procedures, fun
Jonas Maebe het geskryf:
>
> Conversely, adding it before the semicolon in case of procedure/
> function declarations would be inconsistent with how other modifiers
> have always been used there.
I don't have problems with it's usage in procedures, functions or methods.
The modifier appearing
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> > As always, because Delphi does. See the recently submitted fcl-passrc
> > bugreports for more examples.
>
> Shouldn't that inconsistent syntax be limited to the Delphi compiler mode
> only? Like many other things are.
IMHO no.
_
On 29 Apr 2010, at 10:52, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Marco van de Voort het geskryf:
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
Why is the usage of 'deprecated' inconsistent, depending where you
use it.
As always, because Delphi does. See the recently submitted fcl-passrc
bugreports fo
Marco van de Voort het geskryf:
> In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
>> Why is the usage of 'deprecated' inconsistent, depending where you use it.
>
> As always, because Delphi does. See the recently submitted fcl-passrc
> bugreports for more examples.
Shouldn't that inconsistent s
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
>
> Why is the usage of 'deprecated' inconsistent, depending where you use it.
As always, because Delphi does. See the recently submitted fcl-passrc
bugreports for more examples.
___
fpc-pascal maillist
Hi,
Why is the usage of 'deprecated' inconsistent, depending where you use it.
I'm using the ObjFPC compiler mode.
TRGBTriple = record
Red: word;
Green: word;
Blue: word;
Alpha: word;
end deprecated;// <<- Note: no semi-colon after 'end'.
vs
TRGBTriple = record
28 matches
Mail list logo
