> Some files of RTL core are under the "full" GPL license, not a LGPL. Is it
> a new politics of FPC?
No. Must have been an oversight/bad copy/paste.
If you have more files, don't hesitate to name them. The syscallh.inc was
created by me, so that is certainly a mistake.
___
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Ok, to prove this, I've added some ugly examples posted on IRC in the
wiki. Look at the bottom of generic keyword syntax examples.
Anyone an idea ? :-)
Ok I've posted under "Suggestion 2" a slightly modified syntax. Let me
know what you think.
Micha
_
> >
> > Pro <> reason will probably be: "compatibility".
> > Pro "generic" will probably be: more Pascal-alike/readability.
> >
> Delphi.Net2.0 is using <>
> Chrome is using <>
> C# is using <>
> C/C++ is using <>
>
> Why should FPC use "generics" ???
Why not if it is better readable and in the p
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Come on, we're just discussing pros
and cons, who knows what the final syntax will be?
Ok, to prove this, I've added some ugly examples posted on IRC in the
wiki. Look at the bottom of generic keyword syntax examples.
Anyone an idea ? :-)
Micha
___
Some files of RTL core are under the "full" GPL license, not a LGPL. Is it a
new politics of FPC?
There are some files which are necessary. As example,
rtl/linux/i386/syscallh.inc, etc.
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://l
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:16:46 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Delphi.Net2.0 is using <>
Uncertain.
> Chrome is using <>
Not inventive enough to come up with something of their own and simply
following .NET C# syntax.
> C# is using <>
Duh. It's a C derivative.
> C/C++ is using <>
Duh, they l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Delphi.Net2.0 is using <>
Chrome is using <>
C# is using <>
C/C++ is using <>
Why should FPC use "generics" ???
Why should FPC be Pascal-ish? Is that your question? :-)
mm
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepasc
http://www.toolbox-mag.de/data/tx62005artikel1.pdf
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Delphi.Net2.0 is using <>
Chrome is using <>
C# is using <>
C/C++ is using <>
Why should FPC use "generics" ???
Because it is more readable. < is an operator and therefore should not
be used as bracket in generic definition.
That b.s. will break the Delphi code
Paul Davidson wrote:
> Noticed that Procedure fpc_AnsiStr_Decr_Ref (Var S : Pointer); is not
> inlined.
> Tried it and it seems to work.
It makes no sense: increases executable size (cache and branch history
trashing!) and it's no leaf procedure.
___
fp
Noticed that Procedure fpc_AnsiStr_Decr_Ref (Var S : Pointer); is not
inlined.
Tried it and it seems to work.
P Davidson
http://CoraxNetworks.com
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fp
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Hi all,
I want to push generics to the next level.
For those not familar, there is already a wiki about this topic:
http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/Generics
I have tried to organize the "usage example" section a bit, I think
most of
Daniël Mantione wrote:
But...
Templates can save typing. People are demanding them, because there is a
hype. Lack of templates is seen as a deficiency of Pascal against C++.
So we should support them.
Daniël
Agreed. I have a 2000 lines unit containing type safe lists that would
become 300
Op Wed, 9 Nov 2005, schreef Bram Kuijvenhoven:
> > These tricks have been used in some C++ compilers with very limited
> > success. The problem is that class_a has a different virtual
> > methods/constructors/destructors than class b, so the code to be
> > generated for them will be different, e
> Dani?l Mantione wrote:
> >>Won't the compiler sometimes be able to handle this smarter? When the code
> >>generated for vector and vector is equivalent, we only
> >>need
> >>to include it once in the resulting executable, right? The only thing is we
> >>have to see when this situation occurs.
>
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Wed, 9 Nov 2005, schreef Bram Kuijvenhoven:
Daniël Mantione wrote:
(Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a little bit, but don't you agree generics /are/
useful?)
Certainly I do agree. However, they *will* be used to introduce the
bloated programming I described. I don't think
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Hi all,
I want to push generics to the next level.
For those not familar, there is already a wiki about this topic:
http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/Generics
I have tried to organize the "usage example" section a bi
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Hi all,
I want to push generics to the next level.
For those not familar, there is already a wiki about this topic:
http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/Generics
I have tried to organize the "usage example" section a bit, I think most
of the "(uncategorized)" item
Op Wed, 9 Nov 2005, schreef Bram Kuijvenhoven:
> Daniël Mantione wrote:
> (Ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a little bit, but don't you agree generics /are/
> useful?)
Certainly I do agree. However, they *will* be used to introduce the
bloated programming I described. I don't think we should be hap
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Ok, lets put it blunt. It is absolutely not important to have templates at
all. We've been able to develop top class code of the best kind without
templates.
That is true. Yet I really like the type-safety of templates. Advantages
include:
- you have to type less type c
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >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 thei
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >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 thei
22 matches
Mail list logo
