On Di, 2016-11-15 at 22:38 -0700, Lars wrote:
> I just wish CVS and SVN had as nice of a GUI front end (like github).
> That's the one thing I really like about git is the nice GUI access,
> simple readme system for projects etc. With CVS and SVN gui's and website
> front ends I never found anythi
On Sun, November 13, 2016 2:50 am, Bo Berglund wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 21:15:03 -0600, "Lars"
> wrote:
>
>
>> The issue with github is that it encourages a lot of forking rather
>> than working together as CVS did.
>
> We still use CVS
I just wish CVS and SVN had as nice of a GUI front end (
On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 21:15:03 -0600, "Lars"
wrote:
>The issue with github is that it encourages a lot of forking rather than
>working together as CVS did.
We still use CVS and its ability to handle multiple developers on the
same code files is one important thing.
As is the fact that we have used
On Sun, October 30, 2016 4:40 pm, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> On 2016-10-30 21:12, Lars wrote:
>
>> as github is hot with the new kids on the block these days.
>
> Yes, for good reason! Though I would correct your statement as "Git is
> hot...". You don't have to use GitHub or any other public Git
On 2016-10-30 21:12, Lars wrote:
> as github is hot with the new kids on the block these days.
Yes, for good reason! Though I would correct your statement as "Git is
hot...". You don't have to use GitHub or any other public Git
repository hosting environment.
Regards,
Graeme
_
On Tue, October 25, 2016 3:31 pm, José Mejuto wrote:
> El 25/10/2016 a las 3:56, Lars escribió:
>
>
>>> If you want to test it I can provide .exe or source code, but do not
>>> expect it to translate anything far than some trivial functions.
>> Do you have github account... or sourceforge, I think
El 25/10/2016 a las 3:56, Lars escribió:
If you want to test it I can provide .exe or source code, but do not
expect it to translate anything far than some trivial functions.
Do you have github account... or sourceforge, I think a few other people
may find it useful...
Hello,
No sorry, no gi
I just got back to this problem now. Yes, changing it to a while loop fixed the
little bug and cleans things up in the translation for sure. Thanks for the tip.
> On Oct 24, 2016, at 3:20 AM, Bernd Oppolzer
> wrote:
>
> int pnpoly (int nvert, float *vertx, float *verty, float testx, float test
On Mon, October 24, 2016 5:20 am, José Mejuto wrote:
> El 24/10/2016 a las 1:40, Lars escribió:
>
>
>> Hi, what is the status of automated conversion tools? Last I remember
>> reading about them was when I read a delphi page on how to convert
>> header files. Are you saying that nowadways you can
I previously wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that nowadways you can actually convert
>> plain C code to fpc,
Found this too:
http://c2pas.sourceforge.net/
It says it can convert a large portion, but not all, obviously
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@
On Mon, October 24, 2016 8:00 pm, Lars wrote:
> I previously wrote:
>
>>
>>> Are you saying that nowadways you can actually convert
>>> plain C code to fpc,
>
> Found this too:
>
>
> http://c2pas.sourceforge.net/
>
And there is also this interesting find:
http://cc.embarcadero.com/item/26951
(C
El 24/10/2016 a las 1:40, Lars escribió:
Hi, what is the status of automated conversion tools? Last I remember
reading about them was when I read a delphi page on how to convert header
files. Are you saying that nowadways you can actually convert plain C code
to fpc, not just header files but al
On Sun, October 23, 2016 2:31 pm, Bernd Oppolzer wrote
> But if you translate the C for loop to a while loop first,
Agree! For loops, are not nearly as flexible and powerful as while loops.
For loops can get you stuck in a certain mode of thinking and you try to
develop hacks to manipulate the for
On Sat, October 22, 2016 4:44 am, José Mejuto wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> It is at the end of the loop for sure, it points to the "previous" point
> in the polygon and in the case of the first testing point the "previous"
> one is the last one.
>
> So the correct code is:
>
>
> j := i;
>
> This is my au
What I wanted to say:
when translating the for loop to Pascal, you are in danger of introducing
logic errors, because the Pascal for loop is kind of restricted compared to
the C for loop (which is in fact simply a while loop with another
notation).
But if you translate the C for loop to a whil
it might help if I translate the C for loop into an equivalent
while loop for you, (and eliminating the ++ construct),
simply mechanically, without knowing anything about the application.
This results in:
int pnpoly (int nvert, float *vertx, float *verty, float testx, float testy)
{
int i, j,
El 22/10/2016 a las 11:59, Ryan Joseph escribió:
j := i + 1;
might want this at the end of the loop.
Doing that defiantly broke it. I think “j” is being set inside the for()
construct and before each pass of the loop. The author explains the for loop
even but the fact it requires an explanat
> On Oct 22, 2016, at 4:45 PM, C Western wrote:
>
>> j := i + 1;
> might want this at the end of the loop.
Doing that defiantly broke it. I think “j” is being set inside the for()
construct and before each pass of the loop. The author explains the for loop
even but the fact it requires an ex
On 22/10/16 10:06, Ryan Joseph wrote:
j := i + 1;
might want this at the end of the loop.
Colin
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
19 matches
Mail list logo
