On 13 May 2010, at 17:57, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
> Jonas Maebe schrieb:
> ...
>>> Of course she did! Just look at trends in programming languages (and
>>> styles) of the past. How can you say that nothing will change ever.
>> Please take this sort of discussions to the fpc-other list.
>
> Wha
Jonas Maebe schrieb:
...
Of course she did! Just look at trends in programming languages (and styles) of
the past. How can you say that nothing will change ever.
Please take this sort of discussions to the fpc-other list.
What "sort" of discussion? Is it only me or do you censore other mails
On 13 May 2010, at 17:30, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
>>> In the first place it is. But if it would be available, the crowd may
>>> change its mind.
>> No, she won't. She never did.
>
> Of course she did! Just look at trends in programming languages (and styles)
> of the past. How can you say that
In the first place it is. But if it would be available, the crowd may
change its mind.
No, she won't. She never did.
Of course she did! Just look at trends in programming languages (and styles) of
the past. How can you say that nothing will change ever.
On Thu, 13 May 2010 18:24:28 +0300
Juha Manninen wrote:
> Programmer count from 0 by nature. That's what separates programmers from
> normal people.
the programmer's naught gene
;-)
Denis
vit esse estrany ☣
spir.wikidot.com
___
Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
I personally hate 0-based counting because no
human counts 0, 1, 2 etc.. so why must computers?
Yes. That's my feeling too. Zero-based arrays/lists always generate
trouble because of substracting or adding one in many places. It makes
code much less readable.
Read
Hi!
> Well, we once had a prof who counted from 0. After he had drewn a large
> diagram on the board he wanted to make sure that it was indeed 12 states
> as stated in the caption. So he went: 0, 1, 2, ... , 11. Hmmm... I've
> seem to have missed one. Let's count again: 0, 1, 2 , 11
>
> He r
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
>> I personally hate 0-based counting because no
>> human counts 0, 1, 2 etc..
>>
Well, we once had a prof who counted from 0. After he had drewn a large
diagram on the board he wanted to make sure that it was indeed 12 states
as stated in the
Von: "Jürgen Hestermann"
> > it's just easier to follow the crowd
> > than fight them. :-)
>
> In the first place it is. But if it would be available, the crowd may
> change its mind.
No, she won't. She never did.
Vinzent.
--
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt fre
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> At one point fpGUI switched all list type components to be 1-based. This
> caused such a lot of issues that I very quickly switched it back to
> 0-based. Why? Because even though my components were 1-based, the FPC lists
> where 0-based. So I had t
On Thu, 13 May 2010 09:33:12 +0200
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> spir ☣ het geskryf:
> >>> Also, is it possible to set a list's base index to 1 (so that
> >>> last_index=count)?
> >> No. That would break all other existing code.
> >
> > I don't understand. If I set myList.baseIndex := 1, how can it
I personally hate 0-based counting because no
human counts 0, 1, 2 etc.. so why must computers?
Yes. That's my feeling too. Zero-based arrays/lists always generate trouble
because of substracting or adding one in many places. It makes code much less
readable.
But because 0-based is so
stand
spir ☣ het geskryf:
>>> Also, is it possible to set a list's base index to 1 (so that
>>> last_index=count)?
>> No. That would break all other existing code.
>
> I don't understand. If I set myList.baseIndex := 1, how can it affect
> other people's code? It's a new feature that does not touch exis
On Wed, 12 May 2010 16:45:47 +0200 (CEST)
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 12 May 2010, spir ☣ wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > * TFPList
> > Is there another way to traverse a list than
> >for i :=0 to (list.count - 1) do ...
>
> You can use an enumerator with the latest SVN:
>
> for
On Wed, 12 May 2010 17:19:57 +0200
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> 2010/5/12 spir ☣:
> >
> > * TFPList
> > Is there another way to traverse a list than
> > for i :=0 to (list.count - 1) do ...
> > What about list.high?
>
> Yes, I use the Iterator design pattern. This allows me to write code as
>
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Wed, 12 May 2010, spir ☣ wrote:
Hello,
* TFPList
Is there another way to traverse a list than
for i :=0 to (list.count - 1) do ...
You can use an enumerator with the latest SVN:
foreach P in List do
That's good news. I wasn't aware that that had been i
2010/5/12 spir ☣:
>
> * TFPList
> Is there another way to traverse a list than
> for i :=0 to (list.count - 1) do ...
> What about list.high?
Yes, I use the Iterator design pattern. This allows me to write code as follows:
---
var
itr: ITBStringIterator;
begin
...
itr := gIte
On Wed, 12 May 2010, spir ☣ wrote:
Hello,
* TFPList
Is there another way to traverse a list than
for i :=0 to (list.count - 1) do ...
You can use an enumerator with the latest SVN:
foreach P in List do
What about list.high?
Count=High.
Also, is it possible to set a list's base ind
18 matches
Mail list logo
