05.03.13, 15:57, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
With such an attitude you should remove objfpc (and perhaps all
non-delphi modes) alltogether, and rename Free Pascal to Free Delphi.
The situation with FPC and Delphi is very like to what had happened with
browsers. Every had it own vision of CSS,
Am 05.03.2013 07:56, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
05.03.13, 14:10, Sven Barth wrote:
ObjFPC mode is not compatible with mode Delphi, because of conscious
decisions. Think for example about the @ for procedure variable
assignments here or the use of symbolic operator names for overload
declarations,
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Paul Ishenin wrote:
05.03.13, 15:57, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
With such an attitude you should remove objfpc (and perhaps all
non-delphi modes) alltogether, and rename Free Pascal to Free Delphi.
The situation with FPC and Delphi is very like to what had happened with
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 05.03.2013 07:56, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
05.03.13, 14:10, Sven Barth wrote:
ObjFPC mode is not compatible with mode Delphi, because of conscious
decisions. Think for example about the @ for procedure variable
assignments here or the use of symbolic
05.03.13, 16:30, Sven Barth wrote:
Just to say one thing clear: I will NOT drop FPC's generic
implementation and I'll revert every commit that tries to do so, because
Sven, relax - FPC is not your own project and not mine. We can't simple
commit or revert what we want.
not only do we have
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Paul Ishenin wrote:
05.03.13, 16:30, Sven Barth wrote:
Just to say one thing clear: I will NOT drop FPC's generic
implementation and I'll revert every commit that tries to do so, because
Sven, relax - FPC is not your own project and not mine. We can't simple
commit or
Am 05.03.2013 09:59, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
Just to say one thing clear: I will NOT drop FPC's generic
implementation and I'll revert every commit that tries to do so, because
Sven, relax - FPC is not your own project and not mine. We can't
simple commit or revert what we want.
I'm sorry
Marco van de Voort wrote:
But even when in theory (which I btw don't even want to consider), you are
equivalent to C in this way, it basically means disabling the unit system,
and users must start to manual maintain dependencies, and learn to
interpretate cryptic errormessages if an incremental
On 2013-03-04 20:33, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
You can simulate this in FPC as well as TP by using a local typed
constant. e.g.
function GetValue: integer;
const value: integer = 0;
begin
Inc(value);
Result:= value;
end;
I've seen this before, and always been baffled by this.
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 2013-03-04 20:33, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
You can simulate this in FPC as well as TP by using a local typed
constant. e.g.
function GetValue: integer;
const value: integer = 0;
begin
Inc(value);
Result:= value;
end;
I've seen this
Am 05.03.2013 10:20, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
On 2013-03-04 20:33, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
You can simulate this in FPC as well as TP by using a local typed
constant. e.g.
function GetValue: integer;
const value: integer = 0;
begin
Inc(value);
Result:= value;
end;
I've seen this
Sven Barth wrote:
Am 05.03.2013 10:14, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Marco van de Voort wrote:
But even when in theory (which I btw don't even want to consider),
you are
equivalent to C in this way, it basically means disabling the unit
system,
and users must start to manual maintain
05.03.13, 17:14, Sven Barth wrote:
Just for your information: I will implement generic methods will full
requirement for generic and specialize in mode ObjFPC (and no, you
can't change my opinion on that).
Yes, I didn't expect my mails will suddenly change your opinion. And
even if they
Am 05.03.2013 10:41, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
05.03.13, 17:14, Sven Barth wrote:
Just for your information: I will implement generic methods will full
requirement for generic and specialize in mode ObjFPC (and no, you
can't change my opinion on that).
Yes, I didn't expect my mails will suddenly
On 2013-03-05 09:12, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
You may think that Delphi is the best thing since sliced bread,
but not everyone thinks so.
There are several people on the list that do not like what Delphi is doing to
the pascal language.
+1000
I think Embarcadero is butchering the Object
05.03.13, 17:12, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Of course we can, if you violate a basic rule: do not undo other peoples
work.
Can you imagine me or anybody other in FPC team who do so without total
agreement?
It does not split. It offers people the choice.
Again we see one thing from
Am 05.03.2013 10:41, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Sven Barth wrote:
Am 05.03.2013 10:14, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
Marco van de Voort wrote:
But even when in theory (which I btw don't even want to consider),
you are
equivalent to C in this way, it basically means disabling the unit
system,
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Paul Ishenin wrote:
Think about component and applications developers who need to care about FPC
and Delphi. Less incompatibilities FPC will have more 3rd party components
and applications it will get.
For this, mode delphi exists.
I remember author of Total
Am 05.03.2013 10:53, schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
On 2013-03-05 09:12, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
You may think that Delphi is the best thing since sliced bread,
but not everyone thinks so.
There are several people on the list that do not like what Delphi is doing to
the pascal language.
+1000
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:41:37AM +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Sven Barth wrote:
Am 05.03.2013 10:14, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
But on the other hand, if an application programmer could
disable FPC's unit handling and use make -j instead, choosing
to pay the price of difficult
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Paul Ishenin wrote:
05.03.13, 17:12, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Of course we can, if you violate a basic rule: do not undo other peoples
work.
Can you imagine me or anybody other in FPC team who do so without total
agreement?
I hope not :)
It does not split. It
Hi,
I find it extremely hard to follow conversations in this mailing list
lately. Everybody seems to disregard simple netiquette guidelines here.
For example: I can't read a message thread any more by just using my
up/down arrow keys [jumping from one reply to the next]. I have to
constantly
Am 05.03.2013 10:58, schrieb Henry Vermaak:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:41:37AM +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Sven Barth wrote:
Am 05.03.2013 10:14, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
But on the other hand, if an application programmer could
disable FPC's unit handling and use make -j instead,
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 10:12:04AM +0100, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
You may think that Delphi is the best thing since sliced bread,
but not everyone thinks so.
And with the attitude of, e.g. Boian, we see that it's simply too hard
to please hard-core delphi fanboys. They're all take and no
Henry Vermaak wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:41:37AM +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Sven Barth wrote:
Am 05.03.2013 10:14, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
But on the other hand, if an application programmer could
disable FPC's unit handling and use make -j instead, choosing
to pay the price
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 05.03.2013 10:58, schrieb Henry Vermaak:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:41:37AM +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Sven Barth wrote:
Am 05.03.2013 10:14, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
But on the other hand, if an application programmer could
disable FPC's
05.03.13, 17:55, Sven Barth wrote:
@Paul: see? :)
I see you, Graeme, Michael and probably some more 5-6 developers.
Best regards,
Paul Ishenin
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 11:05:22AM +0100, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 05.03.2013 10:58, schrieb Henry Vermaak:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:41:37AM +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Sven Barth wrote:
Am 05.03.2013 10:14, schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
But on the other hand, if an application programmer
Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org hat am 5. März 2013 um 11:09
geschrieben:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 05.03.2013 10:58, schrieb Henry Vermaak:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:41:37AM +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Sven Barth wrote:
Am 05.03.2013 10:14, schrieb Mark
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 11:09:39AM +0100, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
There is a new tool pas2fpm.pp which can easily be adapted to do this.
It already calculates the dependencies, but outputs them in fpmake form.
Ah, I remember that fpmake can build with multiple threads, so perhaps
this is a
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org hat am 5. März 2013 um 11:09
geschrieben:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 05.03.2013 10:58, schrieb Henry Vermaak:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:41:37AM +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Sven
Paul Ishenin wrote:
I remember author of Total Commander who had failed to port his project
to FPC + Laz because of many incompatilities in both projects.
IMHO, you are not right. the 64-bit version seems to be written in
FPC/Lazarus:
The string FPC 2.5.1 [2011/12/03] for x86_64 - Win64
Am 05.03.2013 11:05, schrieb Henry Vermaak:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 10:12:04AM +0100, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
You may think that Delphi is the best thing since sliced bread,
but not everyone thinks so.
And with the attitude of, e.g. Boian, we see that it's simply too hard
to please
In our previous episode, Henry Vermaak said:
IMHO a threading clusterfsck is preferable to a forking clusterfck :-)
My gut feeling would be that the complexity and potential bugs/races
don't make up for the speed, but maybe a threaded compiler gains a lot
more than I imagine. Are there any
In our previous episode, Henry Vermaak said:
But on the other hand, if an application programmer could
disable FPC's unit handling and use make -j instead, choosing
to pay the price of difficult maintenance, it might defuse the
criticism coming from certain quarters.
Make can not
On 2013-03-05 10:31, Henry Vermaak wrote:
Ah, I remember that fpmake can build with multiple threads, so perhaps
this is a better solution than to do it with make. I'll investigate.
I've got that option enabled by default for building FPC 2.7.1 and it
does shave off a few seconds.
I'm also
In our previous episode, Sven Barth said:
when Delphi announced them they had much more (you know of course).
That was more a prototype of generics. But inspite of that we did not
drop our own implementation.
Just to say one thing clear: I will NOT drop FPC's generic
implementation and
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Paul Ishenin paul.ishe...@gmail.com wrote:
05.03.13, 17:55, Sven Barth wrote:
I see you, Graeme, Michael and probably some more 5-6 developers.
The level of Delphi compatibility vs. syntax quality is, as always in
engineering,
a matter of compromise and
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
Just to say one thing clear: I will NOT drop FPC's generic
implementation and I'll revert every commit that tries to do so, because
not only do we have to keep backwards compatibility, but the Delphi
syntax is a
In our previous episode, Alexander Klenin said:
not only do we have to keep backwards compatibility, but the Delphi
syntax is a nightmare to parse.
But you need to anyway because of mode delphi, so what is the point?
It is hard to parse for humans as well as for the compiler.
That's a
Am 05.03.2013 10:25, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
I've seen this before, and always been baffled by this. How can you
increment a constant? If you can, it is then a variable, no?
A leftover from the TP days. A typed constant acts as an initialized
variable.
You can disable this construct
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 11:44:37AM +0100, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Henry Vermaak said:
But on the other hand, if an application programmer could
disable FPC's unit handling and use make -j instead, choosing
to pay the price of difficult maintenance, it might
Henry Vermaak schrieb:
I'm trying to ascertain if this is even possible (the c-style,
file-at-a-time compilation, using make to handle multiple processes).
Do you think it's possible, then?
Yes and no. It would mean to create kind of header files for the Pascal
units, usable to compile the
On 2013-03-05 12:37, Sven Barth wrote:
Thanks, I try my best :)
I know you do.
And, since generics has also been mentioned in this thread, here is
something I'd like to table/mention (or, rather, use you as a sounding
board, if I may).
Sometimes writing generic routines that are truly
With the fpc 2.7.1 trunk, the following simple program does not work
under darwin unless I also include the unit cwstring:
program project1;
{$mode objfpc}{$H+}
uses sysutils;// also needs the unit cwstring to work under
darwin
function toupper(const s: WideString): WideString;
Am 05.03.2013 11:10, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
@Paul: see? :)
I see you, Graeme, Michael and probably some more 5-6 developers.
That is the problem with mailing lists. Not everybody sends a mail, just
saying +1 from me too. And so it could be probably some more 500-600
developers.
And btw:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Paul Ishenin paul.ishe...@gmail.com wrote:
05.03.13, 17:55, Sven Barth wrote:
@Paul: see? :)
I see you, Graeme, Michael and probably some more 5-6 developers.
So now we have 7! ;-)
I want to keep the language sane too.
Regards,
Marcos Douglas
Am 05.03.2013 12:44, schrieb Michael Fuchs:
Am 05.03.2013 10:25, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
I've seen this before, and always been baffled by this. How can you
increment a constant? If you can, it is then a variable, no?
A leftover from the TP days. A typed constant acts as an initialized
Am 05.03.2013 12:29, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
This is why I propose the following plan:
1) Implement Delphi-like anonymous functions syntax, without closures
2) Implement Delphi-like by-reference closures
3) Implement ObjFPC-specific named closures with explicit by-value/by
reference options
Am 05.03.2013 12:24, schrieb Marco van de Voort:
In our previous episode, Sven Barth said:
when Delphi announced them they had much more (you know of course).
That was more a prototype of generics. But inspite of that we did not
drop our own implementation.
Just to say one thing clear: I will
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
SomeVar := SomeFuncSomething - SomeTypeSomething.SomeMethod *
SomeOtherTypeSomething.SomeMethodSomething;
=== example end ===
while this will be much easier to implement:
=== example begin ===
SomeVar :=
Am 05.03.2013 14:23, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
SomeVar := SomeFuncSomething - SomeTypeSomething.SomeMethod *
SomeOtherTypeSomething.SomeMethodSomething;
=== example end ===
while this will be much easier to
Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com hat am 5. März 2013 um 14:27
geschrieben:
[...]
Please note that I wouldn't have choosen round brackets either
(potential conflicts with type casting)
?
Can you give an example?
Mattias
___
fpc-devel maillist
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't know why the one who first implemented them chose them, but now the
reason is backwards compatibility.
Please note that I wouldn't have choosen round brackets either (potential
conflicts with type casting)
Am 05.03.2013 14:50, schrieb Alexander Klenin:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:27 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't know why the one who first implemented them chose them, but now the
reason is backwards compatibility.
Please note that I wouldn't have choosen round brackets
Am 05.03.2013 14:41, schrieb Mattias Gaertner:
Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com hat am 5. März 2013 um 14:27
geschrieben:
[...]
Please note that I wouldn't have choosen round brackets either
(potential conflicts with type casting)
?
Can you give an example?
Forget what I wrote... As I've
05.03.13, 21:00, Marcos Douglas пишет:
So now we have 7! ;-)
I want to keep the language sane too.
I wrote not about sane/insane. Delphi adds features to pascal the way
they want - this is reality. We can't do anything with this. If they add
a feature not the sane way we can't undo their
Am 05.03.2013 11:10, schrieb Paul Ishenin:
05.03.13, 17:55, Sven Barth wrote:
@Paul: see? :)
I see you, Graeme, Michael and probably some more 5-6 developers.
Even if those are the only ones, from the beginning, FPC tried to
support all niches. And if someone maintaines a certain niche,
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Paul Ishenin paul.ishe...@gmail.com wrote:
05.03.13, 21:00, Marcos Douglas пишет:
So now we have 7! ;-)
I want to keep the language sane too.
I wrote not about sane/insane. Delphi adds features to pascal the way they
want - this is reality. We can't do
On 3/4/2013 15:33, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
On 04/03/13 6:34, waldo kitty wrote:
i'm trying to understand what you mean by
Pascal don't allows to create static variables inside function
like in c-like languages.
i've done something that i think is what you speak of but it was in
Borland's
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:13 PM, ListMember listmem...@letterboxes.org wrote:
This brings me to wonder if it would be possible to pass some constant (or
set of constants, or something similar) to generic routine such that
this/these option(s) would be treated as compiles options within the
On 3/5/2013 05:50, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
I'm also trying to use fpmake for other hourly build server tasks,
where I need to do clean compiles of various independent packages first,
then build the test suite that pulls everything together. eg: building
Synapse, FBLib, tiOPF, EpikTimer, fpGUI
so that compilation could start while the disk is stressed by loading
all other PPU files, required for the compilation of units with more
dependencies.
==
Disk I/O is a huge low-down to avoid on any price (like databases do
with their indexing). Today me tested building LINUX kernel
Hi Henry,
Interesting that you consider me a Delphi fanboy :-D .
I don't like it much, but I surely love the anonymous methods :-D .
I love the C++11 implementation of anonymous methods more however, but I
hate the lack of extensive RTTI in C++ (and FPC).
I am hard to please, and no fan of any
Ivanko B wrote:
so that compilation could start while the disk is stressed by loading
all other PPU files, required for the compilation of units with more
dependencies.
==
Disk I/O is a huge low-down to avoid on any price (like databases do
with their indexing). Today me tested
Hmm... you are running on the assumptions that humans are parsers. I for one
do analyze the logic not the sequence, maybe because I usually write code
for parallel execution. Humans do not think and follow code as computers,
and often code that is easy to parse is difficult to follow by human
Op Tue, 5 Mar 2013, schreef Mark Morgan Lloyd:
I've not had an opportunity to try this, but my understanding is that on a
Sun E10K with something like 256 400MHz processors the Linux kernel built in
around 20 seconds. I've had it build in about 3 minutes on a system with 16x
80MHz
On 2013-03-05 15:24, Marcos Douglas wrote:
Why follow the Delphi even knowing that is the wrong way to implement
something?
Because like the FPC team have said a million times to me because
they follow Delphi blindly, and WILL do everything to stay delphi
compatible.
Good thing is, most
On 2013-03-05 17:09, waldo kitty wrote:
on another system i work with, we use disk-based breadcrumb semaphore files
for
the different stages and parts of those stages...
Thanks for you input. It sounds similar to what I was planning. Simply
create an empty file in /tmp when each
On 05.03.2013 20:58, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 2013-03-05 17:09, waldo kitty wrote:
on another system i work with, we use disk-based breadcrumb semaphore files for
the different stages and parts of those stages...
Thanks for you input. It sounds similar to what I was planning. Simply
On 15 Feb 2013, at 23:38, Martin wrote:
RTL build with OPT=-gl -gw -godwarfsets -O-1
compiler build with OPT=-gl -O3 -Or -CpPENTIUMM -OpPENTIUMM
Lazarus -WC -gh -Criot -gw2 -godwarfsets -O-1 -gt
The following line crashes with SigSegV
writestr(BaseConf, AType,':',
'
On 16 Feb 2013, at 15:18, Joost van der Sluis wrote:
When I try to parse compile the ios-headers as supplied in cocoaint/utils,
I get the following error:
NSEnumerator.inc(18,18) Fatal: Syntax error, ; expected but identifier
__UNSAFE_UNRETAINEDPTR found
The offending code is:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 07:26:19PM +0100, Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Tue, 5 Mar 2013, schreef Mark Morgan Lloyd:
I've not had an opportunity to try this, but my understanding is
that on a Sun E10K with something like 256 400MHz processors the
Linux kernel built in around 20 seconds. I've
On 04 Mar 2013, at 13:38, Daniël Mantione wrote:
2. Layered code generation
The split of the code generation in a high-level and low-level layer, means
that for every node that is processed, first the high-level virtual method is
called, which in turn calls the lower level virtual
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 09:56:21AM -0800, Boian Mitov wrote:
Hi Henry,
Interesting that you consider me a Delphi fanboy :-D .
I don't like it much, but I surely love the anonymous methods :-D .
I love the C++11 implementation of anonymous methods more however,
but I hate the lack of
I equally love and hate the tools (spare Scheme and Java) :-D . So hence the
smiling faces.
I needed the performance boos and speed of development they are giving me.
The development before that was way too slow :-( .
I have increased the productivity multiple times by doing that. I also did
I have observed a lot of Delphi developers who have written code that
needs or depends on the features like anonymous methods, generics,
RTTI give up porting to FPC because it proved too difficult, but then
it turns out those libraries could greatly enhance FPC usage.
So I think this bullet must
Henry Vermaak wrote:
On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 07:26:19PM +0100, Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Tue, 5 Mar 2013, schreef Mark Morgan Lloyd:
I've not had an opportunity to try this, but my understanding is
that on a Sun E10K with something like 256 400MHz processors the
Linux kernel built in around
78 matches
Mail list logo
