27.10.2021 18:50, Bart via lazarus пишет:
Hi,
I thought I better start a new therad for this one, otherwise I get
lost in the previous "TMask revisited" thread.
I would like to rename some stuff, now we still can.
Easier to remeber IMO:
WindowsQuirksAllAllowed -> AllWindowsQuirks
WindowsQuirks
28.10.2021 0:33, Bart via lazarus пишет:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 11:17 PM Juha Manninen via lazarus
wrote:
Attached the codetools popup for TMask.Create constructor.
I would think it would be clear enough?
It is clear for people who know the details already. For new users there is no
hint
28.10.2021 0:17, Juha Manninen via lazarus пишет:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:02 AM Bart via lazarus
mailto:lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org>>
wrote:
Attached the codetools popup for TMask.Create constructor.
I would think it would be clear enough?
Ok, if you say so. :)
It is clear for p
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 11:17 PM Juha Manninen via lazarus
wrote:
>> Attached the codetools popup for TMask.Create constructor.
>> I would think it would be clear enough?
> It is clear for people who know the details already. For new users there is
> no hint of an extended syntax.
> Anyway, we
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:02 AM Bart via lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
> Attached the codetools popup for TMask.Create constructor.
> I would think it would be clear enough?
>
Ok, if you say so. :)
It is clear for people who know the details already. For new users there is
no h
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 9:55 PM Juha Manninen via lazarus
wrote:
> The idea was only to offer an intuitive API which gives a hint there is
> something extended available, just like CreateLegacy() gave a hint there is
> the good old legacy syntax available.
Attached the codetools popup for TMas
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 10:06 PM Bart via lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
> You totally lost me here.
> IMHO there is no need for CreateExtende or similar new constructor.
>
Why not?
THis is what we currently have.
>
> TMask:
> constructor Create(const aMask: String; aCaseSensit
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 8:46 PM Juha Manninen via lazarus
wrote:
> There would be a constructor named CreateExtended or CreateAdvanced or
> similar, allowing the new nice syntax.
You totally lost me here.
IMHO there is no need for CreateExtende or similar new constructor.
THis is what we curre
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 6:42 PM José Mejuto via lazarus
wrote:
> Line 780, current:
>
>Add(TMaskParsedCode.OptionalChar);
>Add(fCPLength,@fMask[fMaskInd]);
>fLastOC:=TMaskParsedCode.OptionalChar;
>
> Line 780, new:
>
>if (mocSet in fMaskOpcodesAllowed) then begin
>
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 6:44 PM Bart via lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
> > The extended syntax would have another constructor.
>
> Not really sure what you mean by that.
>
There would be a constructor named CreateExtended or CreateAdvanced or
similar, allowing the new nice synta
El 27/10/2021 a las 13:35, Bart via lazarus escribió:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 1:28 PM José Mejuto via lazarus
wrote:
"]" must be escaped in all cases, with ranges and with sets or it will
be interpreted as a premature closing (ranges).
Actually I did not think of that.
Could you possibly pr
El 27/10/2021 a las 13:38, Bart via lazarus escribió:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 1:28 PM José Mejuto via lazarus
wrote:
This is a side effect of the found bug, in ranges the only valid syntax
(without sets enabled) is "char-char".
So, without [mocSet] [a-dqx] would be invalid?
Hello,
With m
Hi,
I thought I better start a new therad for this one, otherwise I get
lost in the previous "TMask revisited" thread.
I would like to rename some stuff, now we still can.
Easier to remeber IMO:
WindowsQuirksAllAllowed -> AllWindowsQuirks
WindowsQuirksDefaultAllowed -> DefaultWindowsQuirks
Mask
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:09 PM Juha Manninen via lazarus
wrote:
>> Wouldn't is be a bit more logical to exclude mocEscapeChar form the
>> MaskOpCodesDefaultAllowed constant, since we'ld like to have the
>> default behaviour as compatible as possible?
>
>
> That is fine with me. The Create constr
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:50 PM Bart via lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
> The new masks unit has several CreateLegacy constructors (and some
> *Legacy* functions).
> They call the new constructros with mocEscapeChar disabled.
>
> Wouldn't is be a bit more logical to exclude mocEsc
Hi,
The new masks unit has several CreateLegacy constructors (and some
*Legacy* functions).
They call the new constructros with mocEscapeChar disabled.
Wouldn't is be a bit more logical to exclude mocEscapeChar form the
MaskOpCodesDefaultAllowed constant, since we'ld like to have the
default beha
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 1:28 PM José Mejuto via lazarus
wrote:
> This is a side effect of the found bug, in ranges the only valid syntax
> (without sets enabled) is "char-char".
So, without [mocSet] [a-dqx] would be invalid?
--
Bart
--
___
lazarus m
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 1:28 PM José Mejuto via lazarus
wrote:
> "]" must be escaped in all cases, with ranges and with sets or it will
> be interpreted as a premature closing (ranges).
Actually I did not think of that.
Could you possibly provide a patch against main and post it on GitLab
(or a
El 26/10/2021 a las 19:01, Bart via lazarus escribió:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 6:48 PM Bart wrote:
Point 2 would need (probably a minor) change to the CompileRange method.
Attached diff might do what I intended.
@José: does it in fact allow ? in a range as a literal, without side effects.
I d
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:44 PM Bart wrote:
> I'll have a go at it then
To simplify matters I decided to remove the CreateWindows and
CreateNative constructors for TMaskList.
The CreateWindows skipped the population of fMasksWindows, but that is
a small price to pay IMO.
I can't have this as a
El 26/10/2021 a las 18:48, Bart via lazarus escribió:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 1:38 PM José Mejuto via lazarus
wrote:
You found a bug,
3. '-' if it is NOT the first char (or the first after the negating
!), it is then the indicator for a range
Hello,
This is a side effect of the found bug
21 matches
Mail list logo
