On 28/08/17 03:12, Paulo Costa wrote:
> On 27-Aug-17 23:47, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote:
>> Is 2 neither true, nor false? 3? 4?
>>
>> If false is zero,
>> Then true is not false.
>>
>> Also C doesn't have a boolean type per se. Iirc it was introduced in some
>> version of c++ standard.
>>
>> In C it'
On 2017-08-27 21:12, Paulo Costa wrote:
On 27-Aug-17 23:47, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote:
Is 2 neither true, nor false? 3? 4?
If false is zero,
Then true is not false.
Also C doesn't have a boolean type per se. Iirc it was introduced in
some version of c++ standard.
In C it's very strange to se
On 27-Aug-17 23:47, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote:
Is 2 neither true, nor false? 3? 4?
If false is zero,
Then true is not false.
Also C doesn't have a boolean type per se. Iirc it was introduced in
some version of c++ standard.
In C it's very strange to see code like that:
If (b==1)
It's always
Is 2 neither true, nor false? 3? 4?
If false is zero,
Then true is not false.
Also C doesn't have a boolean type per se. Iirc it was introduced in some
version of c++ standard.
In C it's very strange to see code like that:
If (b==1)
It's always
If (b)
Or
If (!b)
On Sunday, August 27, 2017,
On 2017-08-27 06:22, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote:
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 2:37 AM, wrote:
Why borland chose the bool to not be 100 percent compatible, and
only 50 percent compatible?
Bool in delphi:
true = -1
Bool in C:
true = ($) 1
Why not just make it exactly compatible, there m
On 2017-08-27 12:25, mar...@stack.nl wrote:
In our previous episode, nore...@z505.com said:
> rarer
> cases)
That's good news, does Delphi need to add a boolean8/16/32 some day,
or
already has?
I don't know. FPC needed it for GTK interfacing, but FPC doesn't use
it.
The main headers inte
On 27.08.2017 19:27, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal said:
>> Am 27.08.2017 00:10 schrieb "Marco van de Voort" :
>>> The GTK headers also use a 0/1 boolean, and for that the boolean8/16/32
>>> types were created. I couldn't quickly find docs, so I file
In our previous episode, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal said:
> Am 27.08.2017 00:10 schrieb "Marco van de Voort" :
> > The GTK headers also use a 0/1 boolean, and for that the boolean8/16/32
> > types were created. I couldn't quickly find docs, so I filed a bug for
> that.
>
> Please note that there is
In our previous episode, nore...@z505.com said:
> > rarer
> > cases)
>
> That's good news, does Delphi need to add a boolean8/16/32 some day, or
> already has?
I don't know. FPC needed it for GTK interfacing, but FPC doesn't use it.
The main headers interfaced by Delphi are WINAPI, and they hav
In our previous episode, nore...@z505.com said:
> > And sometimes API don't adhere to above statement, and then having
> > chosen
> > the right boolean type (longbool or boolean) saves a lot of trouble.
>
> Another option is to write BOOLEAN wrappers around the lower level
> functions that inter
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 2:37 AM, wrote:
>
> Why borland chose the bool to not be 100 percent compatible, and only 50
> percent compatible?
>
> Bool in delphi:
> true = -1
>
> Bool in C:
> true = ($) 1
>
> Why not just make it exactly compatible, there must be some underlying
> (possi
Am 27.08.2017 00:10 schrieb "Marco van de Voort" :
> The GTK headers also use a 0/1 boolean, and for that the boolean8/16/32
> types were created. I couldn't quickly find docs, so I filed a bug for
that.
Please note that there is no Boolean8 as that one is simply Boolean. But
there is also a Boole
On 2017-08-26 17:09, mar...@stack.nl wrote:
In our previous episode, nore...@z505.com said:
But it gets worse than that: even fpc/delphi's bool is not always
compatible (but is sometimes).
For example:
http://blog.delphi-jedi.net/2008/09/25/bool-boolean-and-integer/
When one must use Integers
On 2017-08-26 17:22, mar...@stack.nl wrote:
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
I think the programmer *must* worry about the details and must
definitely
NOT use the booleans for anything C related. That was my point.
The interface uses bool, either as param or in a structure.
On 2017-08-26 02:50, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
I thought all this BOOL mess was just meant to be able to interface
with C
libs slightly easier.
But, why is the BOOL in fpc/delphi not compatible with C BOOL, in that
it has different semantics?
One value lines up correct... but not always th
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> I think the programmer *must* worry about the details and must definitely
> NOT use the booleans for anything C related. That was my point.
The interface uses bool, either as param or in a structure. So what can you
do?
> Attempting to cater f
In our previous episode, nore...@z505.com said:
> But it gets worse than that: even fpc/delphi's bool is not always
> compatible (but is sometimes).
>
> For example:
> http://blog.delphi-jedi.net/2008/09/25/bool-boolean-and-integer/
>
> When one must use Integers to do boolean related programmin
On 26.08.2017 13:43, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I did read it.
>>>
>>> I think the programmer *must* worry about the details and must
>>> definitely
>>> NOT use the booleans for anything C related. That was my point.
>>>
>>> A
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
I did read it.
I think the programmer *must* worry about the details and must definitely
NOT use the booleans for anything C related. That was my point.
Attempting to cater for C code using BOOL or whatever type is misplaced.
C does not
On 26.08.2017 12:57, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Sven Barth wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Sorry for being naive. Why not simply use a boolean ?
>>>
>>> I thought all this BOOL mess was just meant to be able to interface
>>> with C
>>> libs slightly easier.
>>>
>>> Instead of
>>>
>>>
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Sven Barth wrote:
Sorry for being naive. Why not simply use a boolean ?
I thought all this BOOL mess was just meant to be able to interface with C
libs slightly easier.
Instead of
If (SomeCfunction()<>0) then
DoSomethingStupid;
it allows you to write - in appropriat
Am 26.08.2017 09:50 schrieb "Michael Van Canneyt" :
>
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
>
>> Am 26.08.2017 07:25 schrieb :
>>>
>>>
>>> What about the BOOL issue..
>>>
>>> We know that Boolean in fpc/delphi is not compatible with a C bool
>>>
>>> But it gets worse than that
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
Am 26.08.2017 07:25 schrieb :
What about the BOOL issue..
We know that Boolean in fpc/delphi is not compatible with a C bool
But it gets worse than that: even fpc/delphi's bool is not always
compatible (but is sometimes).
For example
Am 26.08.2017 07:25 schrieb :
>
> What about the BOOL issue..
>
> We know that Boolean in fpc/delphi is not compatible with a C bool
>
> But it gets worse than that: even fpc/delphi's bool is not always
compatible (but is sometimes).
>
> For example:
> http://blog.delphi-jedi.net/2008/09/25/bool-bo
What about the BOOL issue..
We know that Boolean in fpc/delphi is not compatible with a C bool
But it gets worse than that: even fpc/delphi's bool is not always
compatible (but is sometimes).
For example:
http://blog.delphi-jedi.net/2008/09/25/bool-boolean-and-integer/
When one must use Inte
> It is perfectly predictable. Just do not store invalid values in enumeration
> variables. And invalid
> is everything not being declared. This is how FPC works and will work.
Aye. The point being, if the store operation is in a library (a getter, such as
mpfr_get_default_rounding_mode), there is
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 3:50 AM, Florian Klämpfl
wrote:
> Am 22.08.2017 um 15:59 schrieb Martok:
> > As a heads-up: whatever tool you end up using, make sure you do NOT
> translate
> > the C enums in mpfr.h as enumerations. It will work, but create
> unpredictable
> > codegen on the FPC side.
>
>
Am 22.08.2017 um 15:59 schrieb Martok:
> If your header looks enough like IDL (which is essentially C++ with
> annotations), you may also be able to use one of the available IDL compilers.
> There are a few dialect issues though, so YMMV. I'd say MPFR has a few defines
> too many for my idlproc (ht
If your header looks enough like IDL (which is essentially C++ with
annotations), you may also be able to use one of the available IDL compilers.
There are a few dialect issues though, so YMMV. I'd say MPFR has a few defines
too many for my idlproc (https://github.com/martok/idlproc), but may come
I'm using Chelper. (http://wiki.freepascal.org/Chelper)
It's my choice, because it preserves comments (which is usually an
important part of open-source libs)
plus, can be configured to handle library header-specific defines.
Naturally, the process is semi-automatic, but get be done quite quick
On 2017-08-22 04:04, mar...@stack.nl wrote:
In our previous episode, Dmitry Boyarintsev said:
I'm using Chelper. (http://wiki.freepascal.org/Chelper)
It's my choice, because it preserves comments (which is usually an
important part of open-source libs)
plus, can be configured to handle library
On 2017-08-21 13:08, mar...@stack.nl wrote:
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> I am looking to convert the GNU MPFR library header files, or hire
> someone on a bounty to do it if header translation is not so easy with
> h2pas and requires lots of hand work, and close checking.
In our previous episode, Dmitry Boyarintsev said:
>
> I'm using Chelper. (http://wiki.freepascal.org/Chelper)
> It's my choice, because it preserves comments (which is usually an
> important part of open-source libs)
> plus, can be configured to handle library header-specific defines.
> Naturally
On 2017-08-21 20:34, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote:
On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:37 PM, wrote:
Is there a competing tool that does more, or is updated more?
How about this list?
http://wiki.freepascal.org/C_to_Pascal
That's a good one, I missed that.. could not find it previously when
searching g
On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:37 PM, wrote:
>
> Is there a competing tool that does more, or is updated more?
>
How about this list?
http://wiki.freepascal.org/C_to_Pascal
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.
On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 5:37 PM, wrote:
> Is h2pas for example the one that is used for Mysql header translations
> and other major C headers?
>
I'm using Chelper. (http://wiki.freepascal.org/Chelper)
It's my choice, because it preserves comments (which is usually an
important part of open-sour
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> > I am looking to convert the GNU MPFR library header files, or hire
> > someone on a bounty to do it if header translation is not so easy with
> > h2pas and requires lots of hand work, and close checking.
>
> I do all header translations with
On Sun, 20 Aug 2017, nore...@z505.com wrote:
Forgive me, I have forgotten, this may have been discussed before..
Is h2pas the latest tool to convert C headers to pas files?
For FPC, yes.
Is there a competing tool that does more, or is updated more?
I remember Bob Swart AFAIR had a popul
On 2017-08-20 22:37, nore...@z505.com wrote:
Is there a competing tool that does more, or is updated more?
Recently somebody told me about the following project...
https://github.com/DrDiettrich/CtoPas/
It's specific to Delphi I think. I haven't tried it or looked at the
code, so can't say
39 matches
Mail list logo
