On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
> On 02.03.2012 20:03, Sven Barth wrote:
>>
>> > One more question: why this feature isn't works when used with
>> arguments?
>> > The arguments could have the same name of a property.
>>
>> Normally it should work with arguments as well, but the
On 02.03.2012 20:03, Sven Barth wrote:
> One more question: why this feature isn't works when used with arguments?
> The arguments could have the same name of a property.
Normally it should work with arguments as well, but there is a bug if
you define a property with an identifier that's used
Am 02.03.2012 16:48 schrieb "Marcos Douglas" :
>
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Sven Barth
wrote:
> > Am 02.03.2012 13:23, schrieb Marcos Douglas:
> >
> >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Sven Barth
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 01.03.2012 21:42, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>
>
> On Thu
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Sven Barth wrote:
> Am 02.03.2012 13:23, schrieb Marcos Douglas:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Sven Barth
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01.03.2012 21:42, Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sven Barth
wrote:
>
>
> O
Am 02.03.2012 13:23, schrieb Marcos Douglas:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
On 01.03.2012 21:42, Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sven Barth
wrote:
On 01.03.2012 16:34, Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:29 AM, leledumbo
wrote:
T
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:48 AM, leledumbo wrote:
>> But if I have many methods with a identifier like Value, I will have
> to modify all methods and put something like lValue, Value1, etc.
>
> Trust me, that's MUCH better than letting the compiler compiles wrong code.
> i.e. it refers to identifi
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
> On 01.03.2012 21:42, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sven Barth
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01.03.2012 16:34, Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:29 AM, leledumbo
wrote:
>
>
> That
On 01.03.2012 21:42, Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
On 01.03.2012 16:34, Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:29 AM, leledumbo
wrote:
That's different case IMHO (In My Humble Observation), I guess it's
something
like this:
{$mode objfpc}
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
> On 01.03.2012 16:34, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:29 AM, leledumbo
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's different case IMHO (In My Humble Observation), I guess it's
>>> something
>>> like this:
>>>
>>> {$mode objfpc}
>>> type
>>> TT
On 01.03.2012 16:34, Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:29 AM, leledumbo wrote:
That's different case IMHO (In My Humble Observation), I guess it's something
like this:
{$mode objfpc}
type
TTestClass = class
FTile: Integer;
property Tile: Integer read FTile write FTile;
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:29 AM, leledumbo wrote:
> That's different case IMHO (In My Humble Observation), I guess it's something
> like this:
>
> {$mode objfpc}
> type
> TTestClass = class
> FTile: Integer;
> property Tile: Integer read FTile write FTile;
> procedure Test;
> end;
>
> pr
Hi leledumbo,
I also tend to Think it's something like that with non-scoped records or
something similar. (this is mostly non-oop code, but there are record types
with members called "tile" in other units that get pulled in...)
However the compiler specifically names other units as the culprit
Sven,
No, I used it only in TW var section of various methods as a temporary
structure. I should note that this compiled in FPC 2.4 fine.
(that said, the source code in question is quite messy...)
-- Noah
On 2012/03/01, at 16:17, Sven Barth wrote:
> Am 01.03.2012 03:35, schrieb Noah Silva:
Am 01.03.2012 03:35, schrieb Noah Silva:
Hi leledumbo,
(Changing the topic to indicate OT)
I didn't really take time to figure out whether it "should" be happening
or not, I just changed the references not to conflict. If you are
interested, though, I reproduced it in the screenshot below for
Hi leledumbo,
(Changing the topic to indicate OT)
I didn't really take time to figure out whether it "should" be happening or
not, I just changed the references not to conflict. If you are interested,
though, I reproduced it in the screenshot below for you:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo
15 matches
Mail list logo
