Op 2010-08-30 14:27, Sven Barth het geskryf:
>
> The point is that I didn't tried it. I asked you (and the rest of the
No need to guess any more. I just tried, and the answer is NO, Lazarus does
not read the path information from the extra config file, so code
navigation is not possible outside
Am 30.08.2010 14:25, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
I understood that you tried code navigation and Lazarus couldn't find code
specified in the paths inside the extrafpc.cfg file. If this is indeed the
case, then report a bug or feature request, so Lazarus could read search
paths from the extrafpc.cf
Op 2010-08-30 13:32, Sven Barth het geskryf:
>
> Is it more clear now?
I understand that, but you still will have to take it up with the Lazarus
developers. eg: if you want to navigate the compiler project (like you
would do with any other of your projects), and you are using a extrafpc.cfg
file,
Am 30.08.2010 12:22, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
Op 2010-08-30 12:16, Sven Barth het geskryf:
No, that is not working that way. I set my FPC source directory to the
sources of the latest release, but I'm playing around with the trunk
Then file a Lazarus IDE bug report.
Heh? I think you misun
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Op 2010-08-30 12:04, Michael Van Canneyt het geskryf:
same way, whereas other people don't. Therefor, basing a feature on the way
you work is no better than including a .lpi file (which happens to be the
way I work).
I got introduced to that fea
Op 2010-08-30 12:16, Sven Barth het geskryf:
>
> No, that is not working that way. I set my FPC source directory to the
> sources of the latest release, but I'm playing around with the trunk
Then file a Lazarus IDE bug report.
Regards,
- Graeme -
--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI t
Am 30.08.2010 11:58, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
Does identifier search/completion work in Lazarus if you use a
extrafpc.cfg to define search paths?
I think it does. Either way, when it comes to FPC sources, Lazarus IDE has
a config option that you use to tell it where FPC sources are located, s
Op 2010-08-30 12:04, Michael Van Canneyt het geskryf:
> same way, whereas other people don't. Therefor, basing a feature on the way
> you work is no better than including a .lpi file (which happens to be the
> way I work).
I got introduced to that feature years ago in the mailing list. So it's not
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 30.08.2010 11:23, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
It might be practical to extend Lazarus (and maybe the other IDEs as
well) to auto search for an extrafpc.cfg in the same dir as the
program file so that it is used automatically.
That presupposes that
Op 2010-08-30 11:53, Sven Barth het geskryf:
> file might be such a format, but it depends on the support by the
> involved IDEs (FP IDE, Lazarus, MSEide).
As far as I know, all IDE's and programmer editors have some option to pass
settings directly to the compiler as a parameter. Simply typing i
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Op 2010-08-30 11:23, Michael Van Canneyt het geskryf:
That presupposes that the use of extrafpc.cfg is a common thing.
It is not, this is something that Graeme uses.
FPC has had support for such extra config files since I started using FPC
(+-5
Op 2010-08-30 11:23, Michael Van Canneyt het geskryf:
>
> That presupposes that the use of extrafpc.cfg is a common thing.
> It is not, this is something that Graeme uses.
FPC has had support for such extra config files since I started using FPC
(+-5 years ago). It's also a documented feature, s
Op 2010-08-30 10:43, Sven Barth het geskryf:
> It might be practical to extend Lazarus (and maybe the other IDEs as
> well) to auto search for an extrafpc.cfg in the same dir as the program
> file so that it is used automatically.
I think I can speak for a few developers, that such automations c
Am 30.08.2010 11:23, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
It might be practical to extend Lazarus (and maybe the other IDEs as
well) to auto search for an extrafpc.cfg in the same dir as the
program file so that it is used automatically.
That presupposes that the use of extrafpc.cfg is a common thing.
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 30.08.2010 10:15, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
Op 2010-08-30 09:45, Sven Barth het geskryf:
LPI files are already included with FPC. E.g. for the compiler itself
(so you don't need to add all search paths manually...) and for the
Win32 RTL (excluding t
Am 30.08.2010 10:15, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
Op 2010-08-30 09:45, Sven Barth het geskryf:
LPI files are already included with FPC. E.g. for the compiler itself
(so you don't need to add all search paths manually...) and for the
Win32 RTL (excluding the system unit).
FPC has support for exte
Op 2010-08-30 09:45, Sven Barth het geskryf:
> LPI files are already included with FPC. E.g. for the compiler itself
> (so you don't need to add all search paths manually...) and for the
> Win32 RTL (excluding the system unit).
FPC has support for external config files which could handle this fo
Am 29.08.2010 22:48, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
On 29 August 2010 15:32, Dimitri Smits wrote:
You're free to choose one over the other; Personally, I favour
fpc-unit style.
I find it works most easily, definitely if you use Lazarus.
so, lpi files and the like are acceptable in fpc?
I think
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Dimitri Smits wrote:
- "Michael Van Canneyt" schreef:
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
There is nothing in Delphi X (due in 3 days) that will not build on
these existing things.
We need those fi
On 29 August 2010 15:32, Dimitri Smits wrote:
>> You're free to choose one over the other; Personally, I favour
>> fpc-unit style.
>> I find it works most easily, definitely if you use Lazarus.
>
> so, lpi files and the like are acceptable in fpc?
I think he means that there is a GUI unit test ru
- "Michael Van Canneyt" schreef:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> > In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> >>
> >> There is nothing in Delphi X (due in 3 days) that will not build on
> these existing things.
> >> We need those first.
> >
> > Delphi Xe is no
Op Sun, 29 Aug 2010, schreef Paul Ishenin:
29.08.2010 21:39, Dimitri Smits wrote:
At the present state of fpc compiler it is technically imposible to
port
delphi rtti unit. To do this you need first to implement the next
compiler features:
1. Extended records (methods, class operators)
2. Ge
29.08.2010 21:39, Dimitri Smits wrote:
At the present state of fpc compiler it is technically imposible to
port
delphi rtti unit. To do this you need first to implement the next
compiler features:
1. Extended records (methods, class operators)
2. Generics as in delphi
3. Attributes
4. scopeabl
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
There is nothing in Delphi X (due in 3 days) that will not build on these
existing things.
We need those first.
Delphi Xe is not the multiplatform version anyways.
From what I've heard, the
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> >> There is nothing in Delphi X (due in 3 days) that will not build on these
> >> existing things.
> >> We need those first.
> >
> > Delphi Xe is not the multiplatform version anyways.
> From what I've heard, the Mac version is unlikely to appe
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
IMO compatibility with the Delphi Unicode version were a different project,
requiring some manpower. There exist some more questionable features,
resulting from the (attempted and dropped) .NET
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Dimitri Smits wrote:
Michael, thank you for the reply. It makes a few things a lot clearer for me.
I'll comment a bit more below.
For this I'd like to know a few things:
- First off: would this kind of thing even be considered for
inclusion?
Yes. Any unit to increas
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> >
> > IMO compatibility with the Delphi Unicode version were a different project,
> > requiring some manpower. There exist some more questionable features,
> > resulting from the (attempted and dropped) .NET version, like dotted unit
> > names
In our previous episode, Hans-Peter Diettrich said:
> >> For this I'd like to know a few things:
> >> - First off: would this kind of thing even be considered for inclusion?
> >
> > Yes. Any unit to increase Delphi compatibility is worth of inclusion.
>
> IMO compatibility with the Delphi Unicode
On Sun, 29 Aug 2010, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt schrieb:
For this I'd like to know a few things:
- First off: would this kind of thing even be considered for inclusion?
Yes. Any unit to increase Delphi compatibility is worth of inclusion.
IMO compatibility with the D
Michael Van Canneyt schrieb:
For this I'd like to know a few things:
- First off: would this kind of thing even be considered for inclusion?
Yes. Any unit to increase Delphi compatibility is worth of inclusion.
IMO compatibility with the Delphi Unicode version were a different
project, requ
Hi Paul,
thanks for the input.
- "Paul Ishenin" schreef:
> 29.08.2010 3:46, Dimitri Smits wrote:
>> What I want to do:
>> Since Delphi 2010, there is a new unit in the RTL that makes RTTI
>> more of a breeze. I'd like to port (meaning: compatible interface, fpc
>> implementation) this unit t
Michael, thank you for the reply. It makes a few things a lot clearer for me.
I'll comment a bit more below.
- "Michael Van Canneyt" schreef:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Dimitri Smits wrote:
> > What I want to do:
> > Since Delphi 2010, there is a new unit in the RTL that makes RTTI
> more of
>
29.08.2010 3:46, Dimitri Smits wrote:
What I want to do:
Since Delphi 2010, there is a new unit in the RTL that makes RTTI more of a breeze. I'd
like to port (meaning: compatible interface, fpc implementation) this unit to fpc-rtl.
Initially port over what is there already. Later maybe include
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010, Dimitri Smits wrote:
Hi,
I was wondering if anybody could direct me in the right direction (either mail,
wiki) with regard to following questions.
What I want to do:
Since Delphi 2010, there is a new unit in the RTL that makes RTTI more of
a breeze. I'd like to port (m
Hi,
I was wondering if anybody could direct me in the right direction (either mail,
wiki) with regard to following questions.
What I want to do:
Since Delphi 2010, there is a new unit in the RTL that makes RTTI more of a
breeze. I'd like to port (meaning: compatible interface, fpc implementati
36 matches
Mail list logo
