--it could be that postal charges or
customs duties etc might turn out to be prohibitive.
In that case, I'd Google for the product codes to see if they are available.
HTH,
Adem
___
fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.f
On 2010-10-24 13:15, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Adem said:
But, I must say I am disappointed at the lack of management skills.
You should ask yourself how management skills work in a community where
nobody can force work on sb else.
It takes an infinite amount of
On 2010-10-22 21:20, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Adem said:
I don't mind the filter; this is life, it happens,
But, I must say I am disappointed at the lack of management skills.
You should ask yourself how management skills work in a community where
nobody can
On 2010-10-22 14:27, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Anyways, just created a mail filter for you, guess where the mails end :)
I don't mind the filter; this is life, it happens,
But, I must say I am disappointed at the lack of management skills.
___
fpc-other
On 2010-10-22 14:02, Aleksa Todorovic wrote:
2010/10/22 Adem:
Let me answer as someone who wrote several patches, and only one or
two of them were accepted.
I do appreciate you responding to these questions, but I would also like
to hear Florian's comments for his stance (whether he lik
On 2010-10-22 10:35, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Indeed, you're one of the few example where mailing list noise is not
inversely propotional with the produced code though you didn't fork FPC
yet either ;)
This 'list noise' concept must be peculiar to FPC/Lazarus crowd for I
have never seen it come u
On 2010-10-22 13:33, Adem wrote:
I'd bet you already didn't have a more detailed plan in your head.
This should have been: I'd bet you already *DO* have a more detailed
plan in your head.
___
fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists
On 2010-10-22 11:53, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Am 22.10.2010 10:31, schrieb Adem:
Let's suppose that we have agreed that it would be much more fun and
more useful to turn FPC itself into a kind of component/module which
itself is composed of components/modules so that people can use FPC
On 2010-10-22 10:04, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> Am 22.10.2010 03:21, schrieb Adem:
>> And, how exactly do you expect them to be proved?
>
> Features. Examples why it fixes this or that bug. I didn't see a simple
> example why splitting the parser into syntactic and sem
On 2010-10-22 02:50, Henry Vermaak wrote:
2010/10/21 Adem:
On 2010-10-22 01:23, Henry Vermaak wrote:
Did you notice the word 'promises'?
Somehow you have to prove these "promises".
And, how exactly do you expect them to be proved? On paper?
Seriously, if this w
On 2010-10-22 01:23, Henry Vermaak wrote:
2010/10/21 Adem:
On 2010-10-21 23:47, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
This is wrong. If a big change promises significant advantages for FPC
users, it will be done.
The qualifier 'significant' (above and below) is far too subjective
sometimes to e
advantage' bit, see above.
If with the new parser design we can produce exactly the same binaries
and it handles all the source code that the current compiler does, why
does it matter which way up the parser stands?
--
Cheers,
Adem
_
gling couldn't locate a single ISV/ISP that provides
private NNTP service with authentication --much like CodeGear's.
Could someone suggest a couple of leads.
--
Cheers,
Adem
___
fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists
NG even if it isn't perfect all the time.
--
Cheers,
Adem
___
fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
14 matches
Mail list logo
