On Sat, 11 Jan 2014, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
Am 2014-01-11 13:14, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
I meant that I use a diagram typesetting package for LaTeX. This package
definitely works like that.
Then something is wrong with this package
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> > Am 2014-01-11 13:14, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
> >> I meant that I use a diagram typesetting package for LaTeX. This package
> >> definitely works like that.
> >
> > Then something is wrong with this package.
> > Which one is it?
>
> listi
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Am 2014-01-11 13:14, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
I meant that I use a diagram typesetting package for LaTeX. This package
definitely works like that.
Then something is wrong with this package.
Which one is it?
listings.sty
I didn't write thi
Am 2014-01-11 13:14, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
I meant that I use a diagram typesetting package for LaTeX. This package
definitely works like that.
Then something is wrong with this package.
Which one is it?
And as I wrote, there are diagrams which do *not*
repeat the header (diagram name)
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Am 2014-01-10 09:09, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
But why is the heading part of the diagram?
Because that is how the typesetting mechanism for syntax diagrams work.
That's not true (at least not in diagrams other than in Free Pascal).
I mean
Am 2014-01-10 09:09, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
>> But why is the heading part of the diagram?
> Because that is how the typesetting mechanism for syntax diagrams work.
That's not true (at least not in diagrams other than in Free Pascal).
It is very illogical to begin a diagram with the name of
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Constantine Yannakopoulos wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 08.01.2014 22:01, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
You can preview the result at
http://www.freepascal.org/~michael/ref/refch3.html
You might additionally men
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Am 2014-01-09 08:26, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
That what should be declared is repeated in the declaration
itself which makes no sense to me.
A syntax diagram for 'type declaration' (which is written in the heading
already)
The heading is a c
On 10.01.2014 00:32, Constantine Yannakopoulos wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Sven Barth mailto:pascaldra...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
Am 08.01.2014 22:01, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
You can preview the result at
http://www.freepascal.org/~__michael/ref/refch3.html
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Sven Barth wrote:
> Am 08.01.2014 22:01, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
>
> You can preview the result at
>>
>> http://www.freepascal.org/~michael/ref/refch3.html
>>
> You might additionally mention that these type aliases also allow
> different operator and (AFAIK a
Am 2014-01-09 08:26, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
>> That what should be declared is repeated in the declaration
>> itself which makes no sense to me.
>> A syntax diagram for 'type declaration' (which is written in the heading
already)
> The heading is a caption.
> In typesetting, normally that i
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 08.01.2014 22:01, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
You can preview the result at
http://www.freepascal.org/~michael/ref/refch3.html
You might additionally mention that these type aliases also allow different
operator and (AFAIK also) function overloads.
Am 08.01.2014 22:01, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
You can preview the result at
http://www.freepascal.org/~michael/ref/refch3.html
You might additionally mention that these type aliases also allow
different operator and (AFAIK also) function overloads.
Regards,
Sven
__
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Am 2014-01-08 21:12, schrieb Sven Barth:
I don’t know whether the first 'type' is the standard type definition
entry keyword but if so it should be typed in bold font.
No, it's not the keyword, it's a "reference" to the syntax diagram named
"type"
On 09.01.2014 07:22, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
>> Where can I find the documentation for my original question about
the double TYPE keyword?
> This link explains it a bit:
http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/XE5/en/Type_Compatibility_and_Identity
But that's not part of the Free Pascal doc
Am 2014-01-08 21:12, schrieb Sven Barth:
>> I don’t know whether the first 'type' is the standard type definition
>> entry keyword but if so it should be typed in bold font.
> No, it's not the keyword, it's a "reference" to the syntax diagram named
> "type" directly below it (though I have to admi
Am 08.01.2014 22:11 schrieb "Jürgen Hestermann" :
> But why is it not part of the documentation?
We are all just human beings that make mistakes. Nobody is perfect and so
is the documentation.
> If nobody takes care of the documentation anymore
> then it should better be removed at all.
It's act
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Am 08.01.2014 21:01, schrieb Sven Barth:
No, an alias would be
=== code begin ===
type
Real = Double;
=== code end ===
Using the "type" behind the "=" tells the compiler to declare a new type
based on the right side.
So a "Double" and a "Real"
Am 08.01.2014 21:01, schrieb Sven Barth:
> No, an alias would be
> === code begin ===
> type
> Real = Double;
> === code end ===
> Using the "type" behind the "=" tells the compiler to declare a new
type based on the right side.
> So a "Double" and a "Real" are not assignment compatible and can
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
On 08/01/2014 20:01, Sven Barth wrote:
On 08.01.2014 19:40, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
On 08/01/2014 18:16, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Today I found this type definition in some FreePascal sources:
TypeReal =type Double;
I wondered what the second
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Today I found this type definition in some FreePascal sources:
TypeReal =type Double;
I wondered what the second “type” keyword means here (I have never seen this
before).
So I looked at
http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/ref/refch3.html#re
On 08/01/2014 20:01, Sven Barth wrote:
On 08.01.2014 19:40, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
On 08/01/2014 18:16, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Today I found this type definition in some FreePascal sources:
TypeReal =type Double;
I wondered what the second “type” keyword means here (I have never seen
thi
On 08.01.2014 19:16, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Today I found this type definition in some FreePascal sources:
TypeReal =type Double;
I wondered what the second “type” keyword means here (I have never seen
this before).
So I looked at
http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/ref/refch3.html#refse17
On 08.01.2014 19:40, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
On 08/01/2014 18:16, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Today I found this type definition in some FreePascal sources:
TypeReal =type Double;
I wondered what the second “type” keyword means here (I have never seen
this before).
You are being rather obtuse
On 08/01/2014 18:16, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Today I found this type definition in some FreePascal sources:
TypeReal =type Double;
I wondered what the second “type” keyword means here (I have never seen
this before).
You are being rather obtuse.
Ignore the diagrams in the docs if they don't
25 matches
Mail list logo
