Am 02.04.2013 15:14, schrieb Lukasz Sokol:
On 02/04/2013 13:32, Lukasz Sokol wrote:
On 02/04/2013 13:18, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 02.04.2013 11:03, schrieb Lukasz Sokol:
[case in point: the try...[except]...[finally]...[except]...end; I
wrote about some time before]
Which reminds me: would you pl
Am 02.04.2013 11:03, schrieb Lukasz Sokol:
[case in point: the try...[except]...[finally]...[except]...end; I wrote about
some time before]
Which reminds me: would you please be so kind to create a feature
request for this, so it won't be forgotten?
Regards,
Sven
_
Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Am 2013-03-29 11:20, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
What is it about Pascal programmers and their assumption that
verbosity is a prerequisite to clarity?
Why do you think nobody is writing text in stenography? It would be much
less text to write. But we use "standard" lan
Am 2013-03-29 11:20, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
What is it about Pascal programmers and their assumption that verbosity is a
prerequisite to clarity?
Why do you think nobody is writing text in stenography? It would be much less text to
write. But we use "standard" languages which have a lot
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Jürgen Hestermann
wrote:
>
> Am 2013-03-29 10:35, schrieb Sven Barth:
>
>> We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no
>> matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad...
>
> But that's not the point here. The problem has
leledumbo wrote:
I, for one, see absolutely nothing wrong with += etc. since it's an
unambiguous idiom which came into use decades ago and is now almost
universally understood.
I see one: compatibility with other compilers, though I exclusively use FPC,
some people in groups I'm involved in as
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
> > We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no
> > matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad...
>
> What is it about Pascal programmers and their assumption that verbosity
> is a prerequisite to cla
Am 29.03.2013 11:21 schrieb "Mark Morgan Lloyd" <
markmll.fpc-pas...@telemetry.co.uk>:
> I, for one, see absolutely nothing wrong with += etc. since it's an
unambiguous idiom which came into use decades ago and is now almost
universally understood. Things like ptr++ or Inc(ptr) are far more
pernici
Am 29.03.2013 10:53 schrieb "Jürgen Hestermann" :
>
>
> Am 2013-03-29 10:35, schrieb Sven Barth:
>
>> We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no
matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad...
>
> But that's not the point here. The problem has nothing t
On 29 Mar 2013, at 10:53, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Am 2013-03-29 10:35, schrieb Sven Barth:
We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it,
no matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or
bad...
But that's not the point here. The problem has nothing to do w
Am 29.03.2013 11:27, schrieb Martin Schreiber:
> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:53:04 Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
>> Am 2013-03-29 10:35, schrieb Sven Barth:
>>> We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no
>>> matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad...
>>
On Friday 29 March 2013 10:53:04 Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
> Am 2013-03-29 10:35, schrieb Sven Barth:
> > We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no
> > matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad...
>
> But that's not the point here. The problem has no
Sven Barth wrote:
If only I'm the core dev, I would mark the C operator feature as
deprecated
and remove it in the next major version.
[Note: No personal attack intended with the next sentence] In that case
I think we are lucky that you aren't a core dev :P
We value backwards compatiblity ve
Am 2013-03-29 10:35, schrieb Sven Barth:
We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no matter
whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad...
But that's not the point here. The problem has nothing to do with backward compatibility. Just the
opposite. If you
In our previous episode, Florian Kl?mpfl said:
> >> and remove it in the next major version.
> >
> > [Note: No personal attack intended with the next sentence] In that case
> > I think we are lucky that you aren't a core dev :P
> > We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it,
Am 29.03.2013 10:35, schrieb Sven Barth:
> On 29.03.2013 02:21, leledumbo wrote:
>>> Good point. So to be consistent, don't turn it on :-)
>>
>> NEVER turn it on for me :-)
>
> If you use a compiler without a preset fpc.cfg than it's disabled by
> default. It needs to be switched on using "-Sc" or
On 29.03.2013 02:21, leledumbo wrote:
Good point. So to be consistent, don't turn it on :-)
NEVER turn it on for me :-)
If you use a compiler without a preset fpc.cfg than it's disabled by
default. It needs to be switched on using "-Sc" or "{$COPERATORS ON}".
If only I'm the core dev, I w
Same here.
M
On Mar 28, 2013, at 6:21 PM, leledumbo wrote:
Good point. So to be consistent, don't turn it on :-)
NEVER turn it on for me :-)
If only I'm the core dev, I would mark the C operator feature as
deprecated
and remove it in the next major version.
--
View this message in contex
18 matches
Mail list logo
