On 07 Jan 2009, at 05:23, leledumbo wrote:
I've read this in a discussion forum somewhere, is it true?
There's no Pascal code in Open Office according to Ohloh:
http://www.ohloh.net/p/openoffice/analyses/latest
Jonas
___
fpc-pascal maillist -
OK, I've read http://wiki.freepascal.org/Modernised_Pascal this (and the
FAQ as well). I disagree with any statement saying that for .. in loop is
only a type-saver. It's a good language extension and should be included
(since Delphi already have this, it will also be a good idea). Consider the
In our previous episode, leledumbo said:
The latter one has iteration overheads, while the former can be optimized to
loop as many as needed. I'm not saying I'm the best Pascal programmer, but
in case there's a (better) solution to this (rather than extending the
language) please tell me.
leledumbo schreef:
OK, I've read http://wiki.freepascal.org/Modernised_Pascal this (and the
FAQ as well). I disagree with any statement saying that for .. in loop is
only a type-saver. It's a good language extension and should be included
(since Delphi already have this, it will also be a good
On 07 Jan 2009, at 03:46, Andrew Brunner wrote:
Can anyone tell me why this would be a problem or what I need to do to
get FPC to build or LD to link properly?
It sounds like a bug in the code generator. Please submit a bug report
with a compilable library that demonstrates the program.
I disagree with any statement saying that for .. in loop is
only a type-saver. It's a good language extension and should be included
(since Delphi already have this, it will also be a good idea). Consider the
following example:
for d in [Monday,Wednesday,Friday] do ;
// versus
for
Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
I disagree with any statement saying that for .. in loop is
only a type-saver. It's a good language extension and should be included
(since Delphi already have this, it will also be a good idea).
Consider the
following example:
for d in [Monday,Wednesday,Friday] do ;
the nice thing about pascal, is that compile support different code
compilers syntax: {$mode ...}
if anyone likes, he/she can implement additional {$mode} for the
compiler, right? this new {$mode} can be included into compiler
packages, and if necesssary anyone can rebuild the compiler to support
3. Handwritten
Question: Need some references other than Jack Crenshaw's book
Pros: Easier to maintain (someone said, but no prove)
Cons: I don't have any practical background on this
I have written a very simple Pascal to Java-bytecode compiler. It
compiles a very simplified Pascal.
I
Hi Jonas,
I posted bug with source. Here is a link
http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=12940
Thanks, -Andy
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Jonas Maebe jonas.ma...@elis.ugent.be wrote:
On 07 Jan 2009, at 03:46, Andrew Brunner wrote:
Can anyone tell me why this would be a problem or what
P.S. Honestly, Pascal (and especially ObjectPascal) already hides quite
some stuff from the programmer. Properties, for example, can hide
potentially costly procedure calls in simple assignment statements.
That's true. But I am not happy about that approach. In the last years
lots of things
Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Mantra: First make it work, then make it fast.
In general that's true from the programmer's viewpoint. But this does
not apply to adding language details because there is no 'first make it
work'. Why obscure important implementation details if the only benefit
is
12 matches
Mail list logo
