On 5/21/07, Flávio Etrusco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Delphi documentation always stated it was a compatibility feature with
TP and should not be used for new code, IIRC even in Delphi 1... So,
even though I'm an optimization-addicted I presumed it was probably
under-maintained and
On 5/21/07, Flávio Etrusco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing I dislike is the poor abstract implementation. I don't see
one good reason to let abstract class be instantiated...
Totally agreed.
Same here... it makes no sense.
And I'd like it so much if FPC would allow one to declare a
* Flávio Etrusco wrote, On 21/05/07 22:44:
On 5/21/07, Lepidosteus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing I dislike is the poor abstract implementation. I don't see
one good reason to let abstract class be instantiated...
Totally agreed.
And I'd like it so much if FPC would allow one to declare
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 08:04:10PM +0200, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
I'm curious:
Was there any feature, that FPC implemented first and was
reimplemented by Borland in the same way?
Perhaps operator overloading and inline ? But I think those have a .net
origin, not
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 01:39:03PM +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Here is some interesting Delphi features I found title: New since Delphi
7...
Anybody interested in implementing a few. At least FPC and Lazarus
beat them to a few of those!! :-)
New IDE features since Delphi 7
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 02:27:32PM +0100, Sam Liddicott wrote:
I had so much trouble in the Delphi 1 days because so many VCL methods
were needlessly declared private instead of protected.
I found hacks round it, of course, but the priorities of the
component-set developer often don't
Can anyone briefly explains me what a class helper is ?
Wikipedia has been of no help, and everytime I search I end up with
java code sample ...
--
Vianney Devreese - Lepidosteus
http://lepidosteus.com
_
To unsubscribe: mail
On 5/22/07, Lepidosteus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone briefly explains me what a class helper is ?
Wikipedia has been of no help, and everytime I search I end up with
java code sample ...
--
Vianney Devreese - Lepidosteus
http://lepidosteus.com
In this case, did you find a java
Can anyone briefly explains me what a class helper is
I think
class helper it some functions/procedures take the first params as the class
(that you want to make helper for it), but the fist param (the class) passed
as Class of this method.
function (MyClass:TMyClass; param2:TParam2);
but you
On 5/22/07, Sam Liddicott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Flávio Etrusco wrote, On 21/05/07 22:44:
On 5/21/07, Lepidosteus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing I dislike is the poor abstract implementation. I don't see
one good reason to let abstract class be instantiated...
Totally agreed.
And
Hi,
Here is some interesting Delphi features I found title: New since Delphi 7...
Anybody interested in implementing a few. At least FPC and Lazarus
beat them to a few of those!! :-)
New IDE features since Delphi 7
http://dn.codegear.com/article/34325
New VCL feature since Delphi 7
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
Here is some interesting Delphi features I found title: New since Delphi
7...
Anybody interested in implementing a few. At least FPC and Lazarus
beat them to a few of those!! :-)
New IDE features since Delphi 7
http://dn.codegear.com/article/34325
New VCL
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
Here is some interesting Delphi features I found title: New since Delphi 7...
Anybody interested in implementing a few. At least FPC and Lazarus
beat them to a few of those!! :-)
New IDE features since Delphi 7
On 5/21/07, Michael Van Canneyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Class has an implicit pointer. record doesn't.
But it already exists in FPC: an object (TP style).
This IS a record with methods.
Ah, so that is what a Object type is! I always wondered, but never
did the trouble to read up on it. :-)
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 5/21/07, Michael Van Canneyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Class has an implicit pointer. record doesn't.
But it already exists in FPC: an object (TP style).
This IS a record with methods.
Ah, so that is what a Object type is! I always wondered, but never
did the
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 5/21/07, Marc Weustink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IIRC, in delphi 1 you couldn't mix classes and objects in the same unit.
So you wouldn't use them.
I've never used them before... :-) Always thought they were the same
as a Class but in
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 5/21/07, Marc Weustink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IIRC, in delphi 1 you couldn't mix classes and objects in the same unit.
So you wouldn't use them.
I've never used them before... :-) Always thought they were the
On 5/21/07, Marc Weustink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The last time I tried (D6) it could.
IIRC, the problem was that you had to specify the class/object a
class/object is derived from.
IE.
TMyObject = object(TObject)
TMyClass = class(TObject)
However here you get a name clash, since it
One thing I dislike is the poor abstract implementation. I don't see
one good reason to let abstract class be instantiated...
As for records with methods, they are required for delphi.net
I think they have just translated it to native delphi
They seems to have their uses, following is a
New Delphi language features since Delphi 7...
http://dn.codegear.com/article/34324
Looking at the New language features page I thought about two things:
1) This is one that I sometimes need: class members (static members in java
IIRC), or class var - class property in the page provided.
- Original Message -
From: Giulio Bernardi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, May 21, 2007 6:16 pm
Subject: Re: [lazarus] New features since Delphi 7...
New Delphi language features since Delphi 7...
http://dn.codegear.com/article/34324
Looking at the New language features page
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
I'm curious:
Was there any feature, that FPC implemented first and was
reimplemented by Borland in the same way?
Perhaps operator overloading and inline ? But I think those have a .net
origin, not fpc, for Borland.
Micha
Some of these new IDE features are sweet!
http://dn.codegear.com/article/34323
2007/5/21, Graeme Geldenhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Here is some interesting Delphi features I found title: New since Delphi 7...
Anybody interested in implementing a few. At least FPC and Lazarus
beat them to a few
On 5/21/07, Mattias Gaertner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They just gave it a different name. Only god knows why...
I'm curious:
Was there any feature, that FPC implemented first and was
reimplemented by Borland in the same way?
Can we take them to court for Patent Infringement or ask them for
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
Here is some interesting Delphi features I found title: New since Delphi
New Delphi language features since Delphi 7...
http://dn.codegear.com/article/34324
Would anyone mind explaining this to me? I don't get it.
Routines can now be marked with the inline
On 5/21/07, Lee Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would anyone mind explaining this to me? I don't get it.
Routines can now be marked with the inline directive. This tells the
compiler that, instead of actually calling the routine, it should emit
code that includes the routine at the call
Lee Jenkins wrote:
Routines can now be marked with the inline directive. This tells the
compiler that, instead of actually calling the routine, it should emit
code that includes the routine at the call site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_expansion
Micha
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 5/21/07, Lee Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Would anyone mind explaining this to me? I don't get it.
Routines can now be marked with the inline directive. This tells the
compiler that, instead of actually calling the routine, it
On 5/21/07, Graeme Geldenhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/21/07, Marc Weustink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IIRC, in delphi 1 you couldn't mix classes and objects in the same unit.
So you wouldn't use them.
I've never used them before... :-) Always thought they were the same
as a Class but in
On 5/21/07, Lepidosteus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing I dislike is the poor abstract implementation. I don't see
one good reason to let abstract class be instantiated...
Totally agreed.
And I'd like it so much if FPC would allow one to declare a class
'abstract' even if it didn't contain
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Lee Jenkins wrote:
Routines can now be marked with the inline directive. This tells the
compiler that, instead of actually calling the routine, it should emit
code that includes the routine at the call site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline_expansion
Neat.
31 matches
Mail list logo
