On 1/13/2012 12:24, Tomas Hajny wrote:
On Fri, January 13, 2012 16:48, waldo kitty wrote:
[time passes]
ok, i figured out how to compile with -s and then i ran the ppas.cmd
file... it apparently has completed successfully... i do have a bright
shiny new exe file... now to figure out what's wron
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, David Copeland wrote:
Hi,
Is it possible to use the PostScriptCanvas unit in a non-gui program?
If you are talking about the pscanvas unit of FPC:
Yes, that is what it is for.
Michael.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@l
On 14 Jan 12, at 5:13, waldo kitty wrote:
> On 1/13/2012 12:24, Tomas Hajny wrote:
> > On Fri, January 13, 2012 16:48, waldo kitty wrote:
.
.
> i use 4OS2 and both return the same path...
>
> >which as
>209 rwx 1 bin 212992 Feb 23 2004 10:43:38 h:\fp\2.6.0\bin\os2\as.exe
>
> >which ld
>
Micheal,
Thank you. I was referring to LCL Postscriptcanvas unit which I use in GUI
programs. When I tried to use it in a non-GUI program, it could not be
found. Are these two really the same thing, or at least similar to use? If
not the same, can you point me to any documentation or example code?
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012, david.copel...@jsidata.ca wrote:
Micheal,
Thank you. I was referring to LCL Postscriptcanvas unit which I use in GUI
programs. When I tried to use it in a non-GUI program, it could not be
found. Are these two really the same thing, or at least similar to use? If
not the s
>
>
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012, david.copel...@jsidata.ca wrote:
>
>> Micheal,
>>
>> Thank you. I was referring to LCL Postscriptcanvas unit which I use in
>> GUI
>> programs. When I tried to use it in a non-GUI program, it could not be
>> found. Are these two really the same thing, or at least similar
On 1/14/2012 08:06, Tomas Hajny wrote:
On 14 Jan 12, at 5:13, waldo kitty wrote:
On 1/13/2012 12:24, Tomas Hajny wrote:
On Fri, January 13, 2012 16:48, waldo kitty wrote:
.
.
i use 4OS2 and both return the same path...
>which as
209 rwx 1 bin 212992 Feb 23 2004 10:43:38 h:\fp\2.6.
On Sat, January 14, 2012 18:38, waldo kitty wrote:
> On 1/14/2012 08:06, Tomas Hajny wrote:
>> On 14 Jan 12, at 5:13, waldo kitty wrote:
>>> On 1/13/2012 12:24, Tomas Hajny wrote:
On Fri, January 13, 2012 16:48, waldo kitty wrote:
.
.
>> Yes, that certainly makes sense. My point was mainly -
Daniel Gaspary wrote:
> Any special reason to Advanced Records be available only in Delphi Mode ?
Personally, I'm getting sick of all the new features added to delphi that
don't add anything meaningful, and just add complexity to the compiler.
why didn't borland just make people use old borland o
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Lars wrote:
>
> Daniel Gaspary wrote:
> > Any special reason to Advanced Records be available only in Delphi Mode ?
>
>
> Personally, I'm getting sick of all the new features added to delphi that
> don't add anything meaningful, and just add complexity to the compi
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 21:59, Lars wrote:
> Personally, I'm getting sick of all the new features added to delphi that
> don't add anything meaningful, and just add complexity to the compiler.
I agrre with you. I like some features of advanced records.
But a lot of things seems a big redundancy.
For one thing, class variables, class methods, and class properties are
subject to visibility controls and inheritance.
So you can, for example, have a private class variable initialized with
class constructor (which avoids code in the INITIALIZATION section) and
accessed via a read-only class pro
12 matches
Mail list logo
