It looks like FPDoc links to an inherited item (method), when only a
short description is provided for an overridden method. Is this intended
behaviour? (see Controls.TDragControlObject)
The short description is shown e.g. in the class declaration, but the
link from there goes to the inherited
2011/9/9 Sergei Gorelkin :
> Personally I don't think this is a valuable feature, but the matter of fact
> is all Delphi features are implemented in FPC sooner or later - so why not
> to do it sooner...
There was recently a fix to Lazarus where some buttons captions were
stored as constants string
Have you looked at target "embedded" ? For what specific platform are you
contemplating this for ? (i.e. what specific need is driving this question ?)
It implements a very minimal set of things, basically the minimum necessary to
support the language core, and the minimum necessary to suppor
09.09.2011 18:36, Martin пишет:
fpc recently added the ability to translate
const Foo: String = resourcestring;
if resourcestring changes so does Foo
Any way to work around this?
Probably only by duplicating the literal value which is used to initialize.
because in C:\lazarus_latest\componen
fpc recently added the ability to translate
const Foo: String = resourcestring;
if resourcestring changes so does Foo
Any way to work around this?
because in C:\lazarus_latest\components\synedit\syneditstrconst.pp
there are a lot of strings initialized that way with the intend of the
old be
Vincent Snijders wrote:
2011/9/9 Mark Morgan Lloyd :
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 09/09/2011 14:34, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Is there a "correct" way of telling the build process to skip the fp IDE?
Delete the 'ide' folder? :)
But won't the top-level makefile rules object to that?
I would
2011/9/9 Mark Morgan Lloyd :
> Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>>
>> On 09/09/2011 14:34, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there a "correct" way of telling the build process to skip the fp IDE?
>>
>> Delete the 'ide' folder? :)
>
> But won't the top-level makefile rules object to that?
I would just t
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 09/09/2011 14:34, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Is there a "correct" way of telling the build process to skip the fp
IDE?
Delete the 'ide' folder? :)
But won't the top-level makefile rules object to that?
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opin
On 09/09/11 13:34, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Is there a "correct" way of telling the build process to skip the fp
IDE? I'm trying to build trunk for SPARC so I can test the two recent
FPC fixes plus another in Lazarus and am getting an error when building
fp which I'd rather not stop to look at ri
On 09/09/2011 14:34, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> Is there a "correct" way of telling the build process to skip the fp
> IDE?
Delete the 'ide' folder? :)
A 'svn revert' can always restore it later.
Regards,
- Graeme -
--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://
Is there a "correct" way of telling the build process to skip the fp
IDE? I'm trying to build trunk for SPARC so I can test the two recent
FPC fixes plus another in Lazarus and am getting an error when building
fp which I'd rather not stop to look at right now (although I'll try to
report it la
On Fri, September 9, 2011 03:48, Skybuck Flying wrote:
Hello,
> Here is an idea to help new-comers to FPC understand how it works:
>
> A new project could be created which would be called: "Mini-FPC".
>
> The purpose of the project is to demonstrate how FPC compiles/builds
> itself
> and how it
Hello,
Here is an idea to help new-comers to FPC understand how it works:
A new project could be created which would be called: "Mini-FPC".
The purpose of the project is to demonstrate how FPC compiles/builds itself
and how it implements basic platform/cpu support.
So the very minimum goal o
13 matches
Mail list logo
