Some Generics inspirations:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/BestPractices.asp
http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dndotnet/html/ToolSupport.asp
Marco van de Voort wrote:
Florian Klaempfl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is this correct so far?
Ok. So, FPC will follow chrome/Delphi?
Afaik there is no need to. Chrome is as relevant as C++, since it is a
different language, and Delphi implements .NET stuff, and maybe
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vincent Snijders wrote:
LOL.
Then they have to publish their specs real soon now. And I mean not
something in a blog, but more something like documentation. We can't wait
another 5 years, until they finally make up their mind.
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vincent Snijders wrote:
LOL.
Then they have to publish their specs real soon now. And I mean not
something in a blog, but more something like documentation. We can't wait
another 5 years, until they finally make
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vincent Snijders wrote:
LOL.
Then they have to publish their specs real soon now. And I mean
not
something in a blog, but more
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:06:10 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
ECMA Standard 334
But this is a standard for C#, so totally useless for Pascal syntax-wise.
Why useless? You can do exactly the same in a Pascal-styled way.
We need just a minor part from the standard for the FPC compiler.
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Why do you think, that Borland will use ECMA Standard 334 for C# for the
Delphi generics?
Is there any official page, document, statement?
Why should Borland reinvent the wheel?
http://bdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,33383,00.html
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Vincent Snijders wrote:
Paul Davidson wrote:
Latest (more or less) versions of 2.1.1 and 2.0.1 seems to have changed
file locations for generated files.
This breaks the FPC XCode integration kit.
I think this has been caused by a fix in the -o option handling.
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Why do you think, that Borland will use ECMA Standard 334 for C# for the
Delphi generics?
Is there any official page, document, statement?
Why should Borland reinvent the wheel?
Thank you Michael
On Nov 8, 2005, at 14:16, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
This is correct. Revision 1698 contains this fix.
The behaviour is now:
- If -o contains a path, it overrides any previous -FE.
If -o does not contain a path, it leaves any -FE setting intact.
- If -FE is specified after
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 21:33, L505 wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to understand what exactly generics are. I read the wiki
page, but there are lot's of code examples and very few explanations.
Can someone explain it to me in a (relatively) simple way?
What problem is it trying to solve?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You stated that we could know already what the delphi-syntax will be,
if they add generics over two years.
But we can't, since we don't know what 'pascal-styled' way they will
choose.
I would say that a pascal-way is adding the 'interface' keyword. Like in
array's
L505 wrote:
The Very Big Advantage (Tm), is that you get syntax checking, while still
using a type diversely. That's impossible to do (at compile-time) without
generics.
Probably the best example of this is something like TList:
Without generics:
TOrange = class ... end;
TApple = class ...
dannym wrote:
Hi,
Am Dienstag, den 08.11.2005, 18:10 -0200 schrieb Felipe Monteiro de
Carvalho:
Hello,
I am trying to understand what exactly generics are. I read the wiki
page, but there are lot's of code examples and very few explanations.
Can someone explain it to me in a (relatively)
I´m starting to like generics, specially for this:
(as a side note, note the only reason why anybody bothers with type safe
compiled languages is strong type checking, that is total _compile time_
strong type checking, also known as if it compiles, it works (mostly).
If it weren't for that
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why should Borland reinvent the wheel?
http://bdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,33383,00.html
That they will not invent new functionality is clear.
But absolutely nothing is said about pascal _syntax_ for generics.
How this is translated to
Hello all,
I didn't discuss about this idea but now I would say something. Is it
really important, to integrate templates support into compiler? Maybe
an external preprocessing utility should be better? I think, an
integrated complex preprocessor can slow the compiling process very
much even if a
I didn't discuss about this idea but now I would say something. Is it
really important, to integrate templates support into compiler?
Yes. Otherwise they are no templates.
Maybe an external preprocessing utility should be better?
IMHO this can't be done. E.g. the avoiding of multiple
Op Wed, 9 Nov 2005, schreef Pavel V. Ozerski:
Hello all,
I didn't discuss about this idea but now I would say something. Is it
really important, to integrate templates support into compiler? Maybe
an external preprocessing utility should be better? I think, an
integrated complex
19 matches
Mail list logo
