On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:40:19 +0200
christo wrote:
> On 2018/10/18 09:26, Mattias Gaertner via fpc-pascal wrote:
> > How to control where 'make install' puts the libraries (e.g.
> > libpas2js.so)?
> >
> > I tried "INSTALL_LIBDIR=~/tmp/lib64", but that moves everything
> > *except* libraries to "~/
Since I’ve got a little more free time I wanted to see if there was a simple
solution to issue in Pascal that causes quite a bit of friction for me, i.e.
constructor boiler plate. In c++ there is “uniform initialization” for structs
which uses the {} syntax. It’s basically identically to record
Hello,
Delphi 10.3 is going to support inline variable declarations like this:
begin
var i : Integer := 22;
WriteLn(i);
end;
I would assume it can also be used with records. For details, please see
http://blog.marcocantu.com/blog/2018-october-inline-variables-delphi.html
So maybe that's th
> On Nov 11, 2018, at 10:03 PM, tobiasgie...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Delphi 10.3 is going to support inline variable declarations like this:
> begin
> var i : Integer := 22;
> WriteLn(i);
> end;
>
> I would assume it can also be used with records. For details, please see
> http://bl
Am 11.11.2018 um 16:03 schrieb tobiasgie...@gmail.com:
Hello,
Delphi 10.3 is going to support inline variable declarations like this:
begin
var i : Integer := 22;
WriteLn(i);
end;
I would assume it can also be used with records. For details, please see
http://blog.marcocantu.com/blog/2
Am 11.11.2018 um 12:59 schrieb Ryan Joseph:
Since I’ve got a little more free time I wanted to see if there was a simple
solution to issue in Pascal that causes quite a bit of friction for me, i.e.
constructor boiler plate. In c++ there is “uniform initialization” for structs
which uses the {}
Hello hall,
I am blind, so I don't use Lazarus. In pure Freepascal, I tried to run
an example test:
program tester;
{$mode objfpc}{$H+}
uses
fpcunit, testregistry;
type
TMyTest = class(TTestCase)
published
procedure TestSomething;
end;
procedure TMyTest.TestSomething;
begin
AssertEquals(1, 1);
> But *if* I had to decide I would pick #1, cause then there wouldn't be
> the chance to break existing code if a user decides to add a constructor
> to their record and some other code relies on there not being a
> constructor. Also due to the syntax
> TYPENAME(FIELDNAME:VALUE[;FIELDNAME:VALUE
> acording example I found in FPC examples directory,
Check the one here instead:
$(fpcsrcdir)/packages/fcl-fpcunit/src/demo/consolerunner/testrunner.pp
It depends only on FPC units. I guess you're looking at examples from
Lazarus directory instead of FPC.
--
Sent from: http://free-pascal-gene
What a shame! I shouldn't be so inattentive! Sorry, you are completely right!
2018-11-11 16:57 GMT-02:00, leledumbo via fpc-pascal
:
>> acording example I found in FPC examples directory,
>
> Check the one here instead:
> $(fpcsrcdir)/packages/fcl-fpcunit/src/demo/consolerunner/testrunner.pp
> It
Am 11.11.2018 um 19:29 schrieb leledumbo via fpc-pascal:
But *if* I had to decide I would pick #1, cause then there wouldn't be
the chance to break existing code if a user decides to add a constructor
to their record and some other code relies on there not being a
constructor. Also due to the syn
Am 10.11.2018 um 09:35 schrieb Ryan Joseph:
Should’t this work? This would be a good way to set default record values but
it doesn’t seem to be supported.
type
TMyRecord = record
public
a: integer;
b: string;
Very good.
V.
__
Od: "Sven Barth via fpc-pascal"
Komu: fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
Datum: 11.11.2018 18:22
Předmět: Re: [fpc-pascal] Uniform initialization?
Am 11.11.2018 um 16:03 schrieb tobiasgie...@gmail.com:
> Hello,
>
> Del
> On Nov 12, 2018, at 5:06 AM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
> wrote:
>
> The compiler now correctly rejects such declarations with a "Type is not
> completely defined error".
But this syntax worked if you assigned it within blocks. Why does it need to be
removed? Since I discovered it I was pl
> On Nov 12, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Ryan Joseph wrote:
>
> But this syntax worked if you assigned it within blocks. Why does it need to
> be removed? Since I discovered it I was planning on using it instead of class
> functions with default values which require an implementation and are much
> lo
> On Nov 12, 2018, at 12:25 AM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
> wrote:
>
> I'm not convinced that this feature is really needed, because one can simply
> create a constant and assign that, would transport a clear name as well.
This is for runtime though and necessarily for constants. It’s just a
Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018, 02:56 hat Ryan Joseph
geschrieben:
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 2018, at 8:08 AM, Ryan Joseph
> wrote:
> >
> > But this syntax worked if you assigned it within blocks. Why does it
> need to be removed? Since I discovered it I was planning on using it
> instead of class functions wit
Am Mo., 12. Nov. 2018, 03:12 hat Ryan Joseph
geschrieben:
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 2018, at 12:25 AM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal <
> fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not convinced that this feature is really needed, because one can
> simply create a constant and assign that, would tra
18 matches
Mail list logo
