On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Joël Thieffry wrote:
>> Le 05/08/2010 21:56, Marcos Douglas a écrit :
>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Martin wrote:
> [snip]
>> IMO
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Joël Thieffry wrote:
> Le 05/08/2010 21:56, Marcos Douglas a écrit :
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Martin wrote:
[snip]
> IMO, if there is no further concept of child units (maybe similar
Le 05/08/2010 21:56, Marcos Douglas a écrit :
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Martin wrote:
>>> [snip]
IMO, if there is no further concept of child units (maybe similar to Ada)
there is no point in adding namespaces to FPC,
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Martin wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> IMO, if there is no further concept of child units (maybe similar to Ada)
> >> there is no point in adding namespaces to FPC, it's not worth the trouble.
> >> After all, it'
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Martin wrote:
> [snip]
>> IMO, if there is no further concept of child units (maybe similar to Ada)
>> there is no point in adding namespaces to FPC, it's not worth the trouble.
>> After all, it's still a name and if somebody else already uses it, you still
>> nee
On 27/07/2010 14:28, "Vinzent Höfler" wrote:
Marcos Douglas:
You right about "constants.pas".
Then I would like to give other example: StrUtils.pas
What we expect in unit StrUtils or "Strings Utilities". Is very clear.
But we can't use this name. That is the problem (no for FPC's units
becau
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:28 AM, "Vinzent Höfler"
wrote:
> Marcos Douglas :
>
>> > But then, IME (most) name conflicts are a sure sign of inproper names.
>> Take the
>> > example of "constants.pas": What sort of constants shall I expect there?
>> Screen sizes,
>> > color codes, electron mass or t
Marcos Douglas :
> > But then, IME (most) name conflicts are a sure sign of inproper names.
> Take the
> > example of "constants.pas": What sort of constants shall I expect there?
> Screen sizes,
> > color codes, electron mass or the gravitational constant?
>
> You right about "constants.pas".
>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:44 AM, "Vinzent Höfler"
wrote:
>> On 26 July 2010 19:26, Thierry Coq wrote:
>> >
>> > I see units as namespaces already existing: we use the unit names to
>> > prefix
>> > ambiguous function or variable names for example.
>>
>> Unit Names give very limited namespace supp
In our previous episode, Anthony Walter said:
> I'd say that the way FPC handles things different than Delphi in some cases
> is worse. Take generics, which you mentioned.
Worse or not is a personal matter of taste.
Keep in mind that the Delphi syntax (since essentially C++) was considered
too.
> On 26 July 2010 19:26, Thierry Coq wrote:
> >
> > I see units as namespaces already existing: we use the unit names to
> > prefix
> > ambiguous function or variable names for example.
>
> Unit Names give very limited namespace support - which only applies to
> types or procedures/functions or g
On 26 July 2010 19:26, Thierry Coq wrote:
>
> I see units as namespaces already existing: we use the unit names to prefix
> ambiguous function or variable names for example.
Unit Names give very limited namespace support - which only applies to
types or procedures/functions or global variables (a
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Thierry Coq wrote:
> Like Michael,
>
> I see units as namespaces already existing: we use the unit names to prefix
> ambiguous function or variable names for example.
>
> In addition, units are similar (but simpler) to Ada packages, which are
> much more robust th
Like Michael,
I see units as namespaces already existing: we use the unit names to
prefix ambiguous function or variable names for example.
In addition, units are similar (but simpler) to Ada packages, which are
much more robust than namespaces. If we want to go the full way, let's
implement
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> >
> > Regarding your ideas 2 and 3: as they are not Delphi compatible they
> > might be considered a "bad thing" (TM) by the FPC developers.
>
> Currently FPC developers do not want to implement the "dotted" namespace
> idea from Delphi - though
Hi,
I created a wiki page for this to consolidate ideas.
http://wiki.freepascal.org/Namespaces
Regards,
- Graeme -
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:14:26 +0200
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> Just to show how ugly unit names look with prefixes.
> eg:
> tiUtils.pas vs tiutils.pas vs utils.pas
Is this really a problem that warrants time to develop and test a solution?
Two letters?
Well, it is your time after al
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:40 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys
wrote:
> In short - Delphi in-compatibility is not a
> problem here, just like Generics or Compiler Modes or . FPC doesn't do
> everything like Delphi, sometimes it does things _better_ than Delphi. FPC
> Namespaces would hopefully fall under
Op 2010-07-26 11:18, Sven Barth het geskryf:
> Yes, FPC is free and examples where an older version of FPC is needed
> can only be constructed artificially, but the Delphi case still holds.
> E.g. tiOPF supports Delphi besides FPC.
> I don't know the unit structure of tiOPF but suppose you have a
Hi!
Am 26.07.2010 10:40, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
Op 2010-07-26 10:14, Sven Barth het geskryf:
Regarding your ideas 2 and 3: as they are not Delphi compatible they
might be considered a "bad thing" (TM) by the FPC developers.
Currently FPC developers do not want to implement the "dotted" n
Op 2010-07-26 10:14, Sven Barth het geskryf:
>
> Regarding your ideas 2 and 3: as they are not Delphi compatible they
> might be considered a "bad thing" (TM) by the FPC developers.
Currently FPC developers do not want to implement the "dotted" namespace
idea from Delphi - though they already st
Hi!
I personally don't have a real opinion pro or against extended
namespace, so I'll try to answer as neutral as possible.
Am 25.07.2010 19:45, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
1) Follow the "dotted" notation for unit names as implemented in Delphi.
(...)
2) Another idea is in a way similar
22 matches
Mail list logo
