[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If no major bugs are found, version 2.0 will be released in a short
timeframe.
I would like to test the Win32 distribution, but the archives are too
big for an download (narrow band) :-(
So let me list the problems I encountered with a preceding version:
- Mouse
Tomas Hajny wrote:
{$ifndef unix}
{$i abiuwin.inc} // more to follow later: e.g. Mac OS, Netware etc.
{$else}
{$i abiulin.inc}
{$endif}
There's at least one (IMHO not worse at least) alternative to that (already
used in FPC itself among others) - keep the include file name the same,
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Question: What's preferrable, a direct port of the Abbrevia library, or
a new and better portable design instead, that interfaces with the not
otherwise available worker classes as implemented in Abbrevia?
Second option.
Here's my general idea of an Abbrevia
Marco van de Voort wrote:
You might also want to have a look at
http://www.stack.nl/~marcov/porting.pdf
and
http://www.stack.nl/~marcov/unixrtl.pdf
Ah, thanks :-)
There are 4 cases for Unix:
1 Kylix
2 FPC/Linux/x86 reusing Kylix libc code.
3 FPC/Linux/x86 using general FPC unix
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
The FPC units are not POSIX, hence, UNIX.
(long threads have already been spent on that, and it is a done deal)
I don't want to resurrect a discussion, but can somebody give me an idea
how UNIX and POSIX are different, with regards to FPC?
Question: What's
DrDiettrich wrote:
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Not everything is a matter of OS. It could be also a matter of toolkit,
database, word size of the cpu or whatever. Further smaller files are
usually easier to handle:
- cvs works much better with small files
Hmm...
- easier navigation in editors
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, DrDiettrich wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Question: What's preferrable, a direct port of the Abbrevia library, or
a new and better portable design instead, that interfaces with the not
otherwise available worker classes as implemented in Abbrevia?
Second
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, DrDiettrich wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
The FPC units are not POSIX, hence, UNIX.
(long threads have already been spent on that, and it is a done deal)
I don't want to resurrect a discussion, but can somebody give me an idea
how UNIX and POSIX are different,
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 21:41:59 +0100, DrDiettrich wrote
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If no major bugs are found, version 2.0 will be released in a short
timeframe.
I would like to test the Win32 distribution, but the archives are too
big for an download (narrow band) :-(
.
.
You can always
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Tomas Hajny wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 21:41:59 +0100, DrDiettrich wrote
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If no major bugs are found, version 2.0 will be released in a short
timeframe.
I would like to test the Win32 distribution, but the archives are too
big for an
Maybe we should start making CDs and sell them for the
price of CD+Shipping. Like Marco proposed.
(He's been shouting in the desert since years... ;-) )
Michael.
If you go this way I'd suggest adding also Lazarus.
I know the thing is just another project made with FPC but I think
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 02:14:33 +0100, DrDiettrich wrote
.
.
I only don't know how to implement or check the other branches - is the
Windows version of FPC equipped for crosscompilation?
The compiler itself can compile for all platforms listed in help pages (those
running on the same CPU).
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 02:14:33 +0100, DrDiettrich wrote
.
I only don't know how to implement or check the other branches - is the
Windows version of FPC equipped for crosscompilation?
The compiler itself can compile for all platforms listed in help pages
(those running on the same CPU).
Marco van de Voort wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 02:14:33 +0100, DrDiettrich wrote
.
I only don't know how to implement or check the other branches - is the
Windows version of FPC equipped for crosscompilation?
The compiler itself can compile for all platforms listed in help pages
(those running on
If you go this way I'd suggest adding also Lazarus.
I know the thing is just another project made with FPC but I think it
would be good for both.
lazarus and freepascal are far closer than that.
lazarus is essentially what completes the cloning of delphi by freepascal.
On 4 jan 2005, at 15:27, peter green wrote:
lazarus is essentially what completes the cloning of delphi by
freepascal.
I prefer to think that we're much more than just a clone of Delphi :)
In fact, I've never even used Delphi in my entire life (nor really used
Lazarus, for that matter).
Jonas
Hi,
I've found that the definition of some constants like RT_RCDATA
or IDI_EXCLAMATION from the latest RC1 is a little bit strange.
These constants are defined as functions, which return a value
using the function MakeIntResource, which in turn does a type
casting from integer to LPTSTR. So all
Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 4 jan 2005, at 15:27, peter green wrote:
lazarus is essentially what completes the cloning of delphi by
freepascal.
I prefer to think that we're much more than just a clone of Delphi :)
In fact, I've never even used Delphi in my entire life (nor really
used Lazarus, for
Thank you for the latest FreePascal update for OS/2. Unfortunately, I am
unable to run the install.exe program which comes with the os2196.zip
distribution. It seems that the IDE-type window comes up but the program
terminates immediately. This happens too fast for me to be sure what
comes up.
if i do ansistringvar := widestringvar or widestringvar := ansistringvar
what does the compiler do?
1: use the systems default encoding (if so obtained from where?)
2: use utf-8
3: use iso-8859-1
4: use something else?
furthermore if the encoding used is one not capable of representing all
20 matches
Mail list logo
