Re: [fpc-pascal] Who said Pascal isn't popular

2009-10-18 Thread Ingemar Ragnemalm
"Vinzent H?fler" wrote: Graeme Geldenhuys : Any programmer worth hiring should find it relatively easy to switch to another language. Or and least become proficient in it in a relative short period of time. The basic principles apply to all languages, it's just the tool-chain and syntax t

[fpc-pascal] [admin] Who said Pascal isn't popular

2009-10-18 Thread Jonas Maebe
Hello, Please continue this thread to the fpc-other mailing list. This list is for discussions about *programming* in Pascal and FPC, and moreover language advocacy threads have a tendency to drown everything else by the sheer volume of posts they elicit. Thanks, Jonas FPC mailing lists

Re: [fpc-pascal] Division by Zero: EDivByZero and EZeroDivide

2009-10-18 Thread Tom Verhoeff
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 01:57:28PM +0200, Bart wrote: > > Is there a reason why in fpc both floating point and integer division > by zero raise an EDivByZero exception? > > See: http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/VCL/en/SysUtils.EZeroDivide > > SysUtils.EZeroDivide exception is raised when an applic

Re: [fpc-pascal] Division by Zero: EDivByZero and EZeroDivide

2009-10-18 Thread Jorge Aldo G. de F. Junior
Wouldnt a NaN (Not a number) be more "matematically correct" result (I saw that on an old book about i387) Matematically division by zero is an "mathematical impossibility", so NaN would be more logical Is there a way to deal with NaN's and other i387 (and similars) conventions directly in Pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] Division by Zero: EDivByZero and EZeroDivide

2009-10-18 Thread Jürgen Hestermann
Is there a way to deal with NaN's and other i387 (and similars) conventions directly in Pascal ? Yes, if not yet possible (I didn't have a closer look) I would like to have that too. But I think it's heavily depending on the processor... (Details about NaN's and infinity at http://en.wikipedi

Re: [fpc-pascal] Division by Zero: EDivByZero and EZeroDivide

2009-10-18 Thread Aleksa Todorovic
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 18:49, Jorge Aldo G. de F. Junior wrote: > Wouldnt a NaN (Not a number) be more "matematically correct" result (I saw > that on an old book about i387) > > Matematically division by zero is an "mathematical impossibility", so NaN > would be more logical > > Is there a way t

Re: [fpc-pascal] BNF grammar for fpc

2009-10-18 Thread leledumbo
> That may be because it is no longer possible to write a BNF grammar for > these compilers due to the c-style extensions. AFAIK if a parser can be made for an extension, so is the grammar. > There are some language constructs that is simply not posible with a LL(1) > parser, > when comparing to