> On 20 sep 2006, at 14:19, ??? wrote:
>
> Hacking the parser to support this directly is a waste of time imho
> (not to mention that it would break the code's compatibility with
> every other Pascal compiler out there afaik).
Actually,?I wished for this one time or another. Usua
About contributing: is it useful to comment some parts of documentation ("html
with comments") with improvements, corrections or compilable examples?
For example, would it be meaningful to add an example on the discussed matter
with a comment stating, that there are no such checks tonow?
On 20 sep 2006, at 16:09, Пётр Косаревский wrote:
Well, I think, that the part "It's not because you don't pay
me ..., that you do not have influence on the project ..." means,
that I don't have direct influence on the project
No. It was simply your "but I don't have anything to say anyway
About contributing: is it useful to comment some parts of documentation ("html
with comments") with improvements, corrections or compilable examples?
> >> It's not because you don't pay me, or because you cannot demand
> >> anything from me or anyone else working on FPC, that you do not have
On 20 sep 2006, at 15:44, Vincent Snijders wrote:
I *think* all he said was:
Even if you don't pay me, even if you cannot demand anything from
me, you still can have an influence on the project or on what I do.
Yes.
Jonas
___
fpc-pascal maillis
Пётр Косаревский schreef:
It's not because you don't pay me, or because you cannot demand
anything from me or anyone else working on FPC, that you do not have
influence on the project or even on what I do (both positively and
negatively).
That was a difficult sentence. I think I understood
> It's not because you don't pay me, or because you cannot demand
> anything from me or anyone else working on FPC, that you do not have
> influence on the project or even on what I do (both positively and
> negatively).
> Jonas
If I get it right, I don't have the influence, mainly because I
On 20 sep 2006, at 14:41, Пётр Косаревский wrote:
That would be more easily doable than the above, though again it
would break compatibility with other Pascal compilers afaik.
I thought so.
But FPC isn't very compatible as it is: if you don't care for
compatibility much, Delphi won't compi
> That would be more easily doable than the above, though again it
> would break compatibility with other Pascal compilers afaik.
> Jonas
I thought so.
But FPC isn't very compatible as it is: if you don't care for compatibility
much, Delphi won't compile a program. Of course, TP will fail too.
On 20 sep 2006, at 14:19, Пётр Косаревский wrote:
It's on my todo list to implement such checks (when enabled by a
command line switch, of course). It's not that easy as it may look at
first sight though.
Jonas
It's great news!
However, in the case of such checks, ability to explicitly place
> It's on my todo list to implement such checks (when enabled by a
> command line switch, of course). It's not that easy as it may look at
> first sight though.
> Jonas
It's great news!
However, in the case of such checks, ability to explicitly place tag variable
in the record structure or t
> Maybe you should take a look at the GNAT source code, Ada Compiler's do
> that sort of checks since 1983. ;)
> Vinzent.
Uh. See also intel 432 processor (1981, smalltalk and ada were main languages
for it later, if I get it right)...
___
fpc-pascal ma
On 20 sep 2006, at 13:35, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
Maybe you should take a look at the GNAT source code, Ada
Compiler's do
that sort of checks since 1983. ;)
I doubt GNAT's symtable implementation is even remotely similar to
FPC's symtable implementation...
Jonas
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 11:25, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> On 20 sep 2006, at 13:20, Пётр Косаревский wrote:
> > I'm vague: for the first time I hoped that when you access the
> > variant part, if the "case" variable was named, program checks it
> > run-time. Hoping that it was implemented this way
On 20 sep 2006, at 13:20, Пётр Косаревский wrote:
I'm vague: for the first time I hoped that when you access the
variant part, if the "case" variable was named, program checks it
run-time. Hoping that it was implemented this way, I asked about
control over the relative place in the memory
> Yes, there is a language feature called object orientation. But still
> that means you would have to translate the binary structure into a
> class instance somehow.
> Vinzent.
The object I presented compiles well, but there is almost no gain in OO
approach: I still have to nest structures and
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 08:26, Пётр Косаревский wrote:
> I use
>
> {$A-}
> abc= record
> something: byte;
> case byte of
>1: (a,b: byte);
>2: (c: word);
> end;
> {$A+} // or even a: byte; rsrvd1: array[1..3] of byte; b: word; ...
> {$IF sizeof(abc)<>1234}
>
> Vinzent H?fler> Probably you should used a "packed record", though. And it's
> in no
> Vinzent H?fler> way portable, of course.
> Also correct.
> Jonas
I use
{$A-}
abc= record
something: byte;
case byte of
1: (a,b: byte);
2: (c: word);
end;
{$A+} // or even a:
On 20 sep 2006, at 02:10, Vinzent Höfler wrote:
so I have to use
record
Something: byte;
case byte of
1: (x,y: word);
2: (z: longword);
end;
No, AFAIK you don't have to, it's the same, just a different syntax.
Correct.
Probably you should used a "packed record", though. An
Пётр Косаревский wrote:
Yes, you do. :)
Nevertheless
some_type = record
case Something : byte of
1: (x,y: word);
2: (z: longword);
end;
Thank you, Jonas and Vincent, but I was vague: what I want is blockread'ing, so
I have to use
record
Something: byte;
case byte
> Yes, you do. :)
> Nevertheless
>some_type = record
> case Something : byte of
> 1: (x,y: word);
> 2: (z: longword);
>end;
Thank you, Jonas and Vincent, but I was vague: what I want is blockread'ing, so
I have to use
record
Something: byte;
case byte of
1: (x
On Tuesday 19 September 2006 15:21, Пётр Косаревский wrote:
> Do I get it right, that a construction like
> record
> Something: byte;
> case Something of
> 1: (x,y: word);
> 2: (z: longword);
> end;
> Is impossible in FPC?
Yes, you do. :)
Nevertheless
some_type =
On 19 sep 2006, at 17:21, Пётр Косаревский wrote:
Do I get it right, that a construction like
record
Something: byte;
case Something of
1: (x,y: word);
2: (z: longword);
end;
Is impossible in FPC?
You have to write
record
case Something: byte of
1:
Do I get it right, that a construction like
record
Something: byte;
case Something of
1: (x,y: word);
2: (z: longword);
end;
Is impossible in FPC?
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepa
24 matches
Mail list logo
