Hi all,
Anyone having an idea when Lazarus is to be released with FPC 2.3.1 for i386
Mac OSX?
Thanks,
Normann
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Tiziano De Togni wrote:
>
> From the Delphi (7) help and in the borland newgroups I read that the old TP
> style object type is considered to disappear, and actually only kept for code
> compatibility.
>
> I see here that some developers still use the type object because of
> My other question is:
> Will Free Pascal still support the type object in the future or it is
> considered to disappear in the same way as it is expected in Delphi?
It won't disappear in FPC, even the compiler itself uses it at certain
places.
___
fpc-
From the Delphi (7) help and in the borland newgroups I read that the
old TP style object type is considered to disappear, and actually only
kept for code compatibility.
I see here that some developers still use the type object because of
some advantages against the Class type (static alloca
On Tuesday 05 February 2008 12:02, Tiziano De Togni wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt ha scritto:
> >
> > The advantage is mainly that you can have objects on the stack.
>
> sorry, but don't understand exactly what this means exactly.
The main difference is here:
-- 8< --
procedure Uses_Objects;
var
Bent Normann Olsen schreef:
Hi all,
Anyone having an idea when Lazarus is to be released with FPC 2.3.1 for i386
Mac OSX?
There won't be Lazarus releases with FPC 2.3.1, because FPC 2.3.1 is not a release,
but a development snapshot. FPC 2.3.1 will become FPC 2.4.0, when it will be released.
Op Tue, 5 Feb 2008, schreef Tiziano De Togni:
Michael Van Canneyt ha scritto:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Tiziano De Togni wrote:
From the Delphi (7) help and in the borland newgroups I read that the old
TP
style object type is considered to disappear, and actually only kept for
code
compatibili
Michael Van Canneyt ha scritto:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Tiziano De Togni wrote:
From the Delphi (7) help and in the borland newgroups I read that the old TP
style object type is considered to disappear, and actually only kept for code
compatibility.
I see here that some developers still use the t
Thanks for the reply,
I was especially interested in the 2.3.1 fix in the sizes for enumerated
types. Small enumerated types in FPC 2.2.0 has the size of 4 bytes, and 1
byte in Delphi. Sizes of small enumerated types in FPC 2.3.1 is 1 byte after
the fix. I understand, that "set of" types has the s
Op Tue, 5 Feb 2008, schreef Luiz Americo Pereira Camara:
can i safely use the below object instead of the record and pass directly to
the c function?
TMyObj = object
x: Integer;
y: Integer;
Method1;
Method2;
end;
PMyObj = ^TMyObj;
Yes, objects (by specification) are defined to have the sa
Daniël Mantione wrote:
[..]
Stack allocation is much faster than heap allocation, and automatic.
Take a look at the matrix unit; you can return an object from a
function without worrying about memory leaks, so they are very usefull
in function results and operator overloading.
Further, ob
On 05 Feb 2008, at 13:24, Bent Normann Olsen wrote:
Thanks for the reply,
I was especially interested in the 2.3.1 fix in the sizes for
enumerated
types. Small enumerated types in FPC 2.2.0 has the size of 4 bytes,
and 1
byte in Delphi. Sizes of small enumerated types in FPC 2.3.1 is 1
b
Jonas,
Thanks for the reply.
I tested this on FPC 2.2.0 for i386 Mac and it worked just as you described.
This is only a workaround for files already stored from a current version of
an application, and future versions will not behave this way ;-)
Thanks again,
Normann
-Original Message---
> Op Tue, 5 Feb 2008, schreef Luiz Americo Pereira Camara:
> > Moreover, whats the difference between objects and records with methods
> > (the
> > new Delphi feature)?
>
> Objects can have virtual methods, constructors, destructors. The new
> Delphi feature cannot.
The records-with-methods fe
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Tue, 5 Feb 2008, schreef Luiz Americo Pereira Camara:
can i safely use the below object instead of the record and pass
directly to the c function?
TMyObj = object
x: Integer;
y: Integer;
Method1;
Method2;
end;
PMyObj = ^TMyObj;
Yes, objects (by specification) ar
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Tuesday 05 February 2008 12:02, Tiziano De Togni wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt ha scritto:
The advantage is mainly that you can have objects on the stack.
sorry, but don't understand exactly what this means exactly.
The main difference is here:
-- 8< --
procedure Use
Op Tue, 5 Feb 2008, schreef Marc Weustink:
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Tue, 5 Feb 2008, schreef Luiz Americo Pereira Camara:
can i safely use the below object instead of the record and pass directly
to the c function?
TMyObj = object
x: Integer;
y: Integer;
Method1;
Method2;
end;
PMyObj
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Tue, 5 Feb 2008, schreef Marc Weustink:
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Tue, 5 Feb 2008, schreef Luiz Americo Pereira Camara:
can i safely use the below object instead of the record and pass
directly to the c function?
TMyObj = object
x: Integer;
y: Integer;
Method
18 matches
Mail list logo
