On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Jonas Maebe
wrote:
> And since this is now becoming a thread in which mostly things from the
> previous one are repeated, please also move it to the fpc-other list.
>
Of the forum:
http://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,31367.0.html
__
On 04/02/16 12:36, Serguei TARASSOV wrote:
I see, and it is what I said many times
And since this is now becoming a thread in which mostly things from the
previous one are repeated, please also move it to the fpc-other list.
Thanks,
Jonas
FPC mailing lists admin
___
On 04/02/2016 12:00, fpc-pascal-requ...@lists.freepascal.org wrote:
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 14:34:34 +0100
From: Sven Barth
Am 03.02.2016 12:11 schrieb "Serguei TARASSOV":
>Holy sh*t, ?a continue !:)
>Even if evaluation order will be assured and well documented, it doesn't make
sense!
>Example :
Am 03.02.2016 12:11 schrieb "Serguei TARASSOV" :
>
> On 03/02/2016 12:00, fpc-pascal-requ...@lists.freepascal.org wrote:
>>
>> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:43:02 -0700 (MST)
>> From: silvioprog
>>
>>
>>> >The problem with Iff() is:1) it either retains normal function behavior
>>> >and thus has to evalu
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:11 AM, Serguei TARASSOV wrote:
> Holy sh*t, ça continue ! :)
>
it's finally on the forum as well
http://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,31367.msg200825/topicseen.html#new
thanks,
Dmitry
___
fpc-pascal maillist -
On 03/02/2016 12:00, fpc-pascal-requ...@lists.freepascal.org wrote:
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:43:02 -0700 (MST)
From: silvioprog
>The problem with Iff() is:1) it either retains normal function behavior
>and thus has to evaluate both expressions (i.e. suboptimal performance and
>allowing side eff
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:11 AM, Serguei TARASSOV wrote:
> On 03/02/2016 12:00, fpc-pascal-requ...@lists.freepascal.org wrote:
>
>> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 19:43:02 -0700 (MST)
>> From: silvioprog
>>
>> >The problem with Iff() is:1) it either retains normal function behavior
>>> >and thus has to eva
On Feb 2, 2016 7:41 PM, "geneb" wrote:
>
> (...)
>
> So it's not solving a /problem/ it's lessening an inconvienence(sp!).
>
> I would've gone with IIf(). :)
>
>
> g.
>
The problem with Iff() is:
1) it either retains normal function behavior and thus has to evaluate both
expressions (i.e. subopti
etrusco wrote
> On Feb 2, 2016 7:41 PM, "geneb" <
> geneb@
> > wrote:
> [...]
> The problem with Iff() is:1) it either retains normal function behavior
> and thus has to evaluate both expressions (i.e. suboptimal performance and
> allowing side effects);
Well:
program Project1; function test1:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:40 PM, geneb wrote:
> So it's not solving a /problem/ it's lessening an inconvienence(sp!).
>
> I would've gone with IIf(). :)
>
Just keep in mind that the thread (about preferences) is closed.
Everyone are welcomed to create poll on the forum. Discussion also goes on
at
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Sven Barth wrote:
Yes, you can, because mails towards the list can be set to be moderated
based on different criteria and I bet that the thread ID is one of them.
Jonas (as list admin) probably did just that.
Mailman (at least version 2.1.20, which is what I run) doesn't wor
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:40 PM, geneb wrote:
So it's not solving a /problem/ it's lessening an inconvienence(sp!).
I would've gone with IIf(). :)
Just keep in mind that the thread (about preferences) is closed.
You can't "close" a discussion
Am 02.02.2016 22:51 schrieb "geneb" :
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:40 PM, geneb wrote:
>>
>>> So it's not solving a /problem/ it's lessening an inconvienence(sp!).
>>>
>>> I would've gone with IIf(). :)
>>>
>>
>> Just keep in mind that the thread
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote:
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:07 PM, geneb wrote:
I probably missed it, but what problem is "IfThen()" actually solving?
It's a sugar syntax, for
if cond then
x:= a
else
x:=b;
Just follow this thread:
http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-pas
So (Sven) to clarify, assume that your original ifthen [patch is now in
latest svn compiler although more work will needed to do x:=if a then b
else c;? j
On 2 February 2016 at 18:33, Sven Barth wrote:
> On 02.02.2016 10:25, Michael Schnell wrote:
> > On 02/01/2016 09:35 PM, Maciej Izak wrote:
>
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 4:07 PM, geneb wrote:
I probably missed it, but what problem is "IfThen()" actually solving?
>
> It's a sugar syntax, for
if cond then
x:= a
else
x:=b;
Just follow this thread:
http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-pascal/2016-January/046375.html
Pro #1: shortnes
Based on Florian's recent emails the if then else is ok, so guess we should
be close to getting it all running. Great, thanks for your efforts. j
On 2 February 2016 at 20:55, Sven Barth wrote:
> On 02.02.2016 20:22, John Lee wrote:
> > So (Sven) to clarify, assume that your original ifthen [patc
On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Sven Barth wrote:
On 02.02.2016 20:22, John Lee wrote:
So (Sven) to clarify, assume that your original ifthen [patch is now in
latest svn compiler although more work will needed to do x:=if a then b
else c;? j
The IfThen() is in trunk though it will at least be renamed.
Th
On 02.02.2016 20:22, John Lee wrote:
> So (Sven) to clarify, assume that your original ifthen [patch is now in
> latest svn compiler although more work will needed to do x:=if a then b
> else c;? j
The IfThen() is in trunk though it will at least be renamed.
The if-then-else expression would in t
On 02/01/2016 09:35 PM, Maciej Izak wrote:
x := if true then 0 else 1
Here a keyword and a statement just optionally returns a value, Same is
ignored in all legacy code but can be use it you want to and do know
what you do.
Additionally "0" now is a statement, (optionally) extending what
On 02.02.2016 10:25, Michael Schnell wrote:
> On 02/01/2016 09:35 PM, Maciej Izak wrote:
>>
>>
>> x := if true then 0 else 1
>
> Here a keyword and a statement just optionally returns a value, Same is
> ignored in all legacy code but can be use it you want to and do know
> what you do.
>
> Additi
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 5:35 PM, Maciej Izak wrote:
> 2016-02-01 21:16 GMT+01:00 Sven Barth :
>
>> On 01.02.2016 21:14, Sven Barth wrote:
>> > Time for the next flame.
>
>
> Flame? :O It was constructive discussion :)
>
+1. It was constructive discussion.
For me
>
> x := if true then 0 else 1
>
2016-02-01 21:16 GMT+01:00 Sven Barth :
> On 01.02.2016 21:14, Sven Barth wrote:
> > Time for the next flame.
Flame? :O It was constructive discussion :)
For me
x := if true then 0 else 1
is ideal and compatible with Oxygene. +1 IMO no need to any other
combination.
Maybe is time to start de
On 01.02.2016 21:14, Sven Barth wrote:
> Hello together!
>
> Time for the next flame. I've attached a patch which implements an "if
> Condition then ThenExpr else ElseExpr"-expression for those that want to
> play around with it. It follows the same principles as the
> yet-to-be-renamed IfThen() (
24 matches
Mail list logo
