Excellent explanation.
Thanks Martin.
Regards,
Nino
//***
On Monday 08 June 2009 20:33:48 Martin Friebe wrote:
> fpcl...@silvermono.co.za
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/
fpcl...@silvermono.co.za wrote:
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Can you please refrain from quoting the *whole* previous message...
Okay. Point taken.
Thank you, Nino!
Everyone, please trim your quotes!
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepa
fpcl...@silvermono.co.za wrote:
On Sunday 07 June 2009 22:19:47 Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 07 Jun 2009, at 10:35, fpcl...@silvermono.co.za wrote:
A high level, a class is like a record that has been modified to
include
functions and procedures. I know that I'm over simplifying thing
here, pl
On Monday 08 June 2009 19:55:00 Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> Hi Nino,
>
> Can you please refrain from quoting the *whole* previous message, when your
> reply only relates to one or two lines. If other developers want to read
> the whole context of the message thread they can look in their email
> hi
Hi Nino,
Can you please refrain from quoting the *whole* previous message, when your
reply only relates to one or two lines. If other developers want to read the
whole context of the message thread they can look in their email history or the
mailing list archive.
It is REALLY annoying seeing
On Sunday 07 June 2009 22:19:47 Jonas Maebe wrote:
> On 07 Jun 2009, at 10:35, fpcl...@silvermono.co.za wrote:
> > A high level, a class is like a record that has been modified to
> > include
> > functions and procedures. I know that I'm over simplifying thing
> > here, please
> > bare with me.
>
>
On 07 Jun 2009, at 10:35, fpcl...@silvermono.co.za wrote:
A high level, a class is like a record that has been modified to
include
functions and procedures. I know that I'm over simplifying thing
here, please
bare with me.
The difference you skip over is the fundamental reason why one wor
Hi Jonas
Thanks for the reply.
A high level, a class is like a record that has been modified to include
functions and procedures. I know that I'm over simplifying thing here, please
bare with me.
I'm trying to understand the logic employed by the creators of Delphi where
they don't allow to w
On 06 Jun 2009, at 17:36, fpcl...@silvermono.co.za wrote:
Is there a reason why the following code fails to compile in Delphi
but
compile in FPC? Could the reason be that FPC allows the use of global
properties?
No, it's an error in FPC which has been fixed in 2.3.1:
http://wiki.freepascal
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 10:06, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> >>Oh right! Something like a masked compare or so...probably not
> >>implementable in an efficient way indeed I guess.
> >
> > Whatever you call efficient. A simple memory compare won't do, as
> > others already po
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
Oh right! Something like a masked compare or so...probably not
implementable in an efficient way indeed I guess.
Whatever you call efficient. A simple memory compare won't do, as others
already pointed out, and everything else depends on the actual layout
of the struct
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 09:26, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> Jonas Maebe wrote:
> > Yes, but two different variables of the same type could have
> > different values for those pad bytes. So you have to compare
> > everything but the pad bytes.
>
> Oh right! Something like a masked compare or so...
Jonas Maebe wrote:
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Because you can't simply compare the memory ranges occupied by
records A and B. They could have different pad bytes (and bits) but
still be the same.
Isn't the number of pad bytes a property of a type ? So when two vars
are of the same type, they al
Jonas Maebe wrote:
Yes, but two different variables of the same type could have different
values for those pad bytes. So you have to compare everything but the
pad bytes.
Oh right! Something like a masked compare or so...probably not
implementable in an efficient way indeed I guess.
Mic
On 26 okt 2005, at 10:11, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Because you can't simply compare the memory ranges occupied by
records A and B. They could have different pad bytes (and bits)
but still be the same.
Isn't the number of pad bytes a property of a type ? So when two
vars are of the same type
Adriaan van Os wrote:
I have never could understand when this is allowed
A1:=A2;
Why this is not allowed
If A1=A2 then
in most Pascal compilers.
Because you can't simply compare the memory ranges occupied by records A
and B. They could have different pad bytes (and bits) but still be the
s
> Adriaan van Os wrote:
>
> > Carsten Bager wrote:
> >
> >> We are moving a lot of code from an old platform where it is
> >> allowed to compare 2 records like this.
> >>
> >> Type
> >> A_typ=array[0..3] of integer;
> >> Var
> >> A1,A2:A_typ;
> >>
> >> Begin
> >> If A1=A2 then
> >> End;
> >>
Adriaan van Os wrote:
> Carsten Bager wrote:
>
>> We are moving a lot of code from an old platform where it is
>> allowed to compare 2 records like this.
>>
>> Type
>> A_typ=array[0..3] of integer;
>> Var
>> A1,A2:A_typ;
>>
>> Begin
>> If A1=A2 then
>> End;
>>
>> I know that I can typecast t
Carsten Bager wrote:
We are moving a lot of code from an old platform where it is
allowed to compare 2 records like this.
Type
A_typ=array[0..3] of integer;
Var
A1,A2:A_typ;
Begin
If A1=A2 then
End;
I know that I can typecast to an array of char to compare but
is there an easier way.
--
Thanks for the quick reply.
...I see, stupid me. :)
But when the position of "amtsbelegung : Tchange_bool;" is changed, no
AV occurs ..?
Reproducable?
Something about Memory Acces I think I got it.
Best regards
./chrom
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>chromdildo wrote:
>
>Well, in your program :
On 25 mei 2005, at 12:06, chromdildo wrote:
msn : array [0..9] of Tchange_string;
port : array [0..9] of Tchange_string;
This array goes from 0 till 9
for ic:= 1 to 10 do begin
Eumex1.Memory.msn[ic].value := '';
Eumex1.Memory.msn[ic].changed := false
chromdildo wrote:
Well, in your program :) Compile with range checking ot see it.
> Hello everybody.
>
> I discovered a very strange bug/issue and I don't know how to describe
> it best as a bug-report.
> (or am I doing something wrong?)
> I try: a variable declared within a record, AccessViolat
22 matches
Mail list logo
