On Tue, July 17, 2018 19:49, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote:
> Please, fpc-other please
Indeed - please, everybody make sure to keep the discussion on this list
on topic, this thread doesn't belong to this list.
Tomas
(one of FPC mailing list moderators)
On 07/17/18 13:28, Ryan Joseph wrote:
If I’m doing work I don’t have to, merely knowing that Pascal has
remained pure to the original specification is not very much comfort
to me.
I'm not advocating for purity. I'm advocating for diversity. I don't
want to see Pascal become MumbleScript,
On 07/17/18 11:50, Ryan Joseph wrote:
If lots of programmers using main stream languages like c++ are
having a similar problem we are I think it’s incumbent for Pascal to
at least consider if there is merit to the concern.
So if a lot of programmers find it bad to have to much
On 07/17/18 13:28, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Jul 17, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Jim Lee wrote:
And that's why I hesitate whenever someone comes along and says we should add
to Pascal
I just want my life to be easier and to enjoy programming in Pascal as much as
possible. If I’m doing work I don’t
Am 17.07.2018 um 22:32 schrieb Ryan Joseph:
On Jul 17, 2018, at 2:15 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
wrote:
Those specific features you mention were added because of Delphi compatibility
not because someone thought they are good. Florian even likened records with
methods to a can of worms
> On Jul 17, 2018, at 2:15 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
> wrote:
>
> Those specific features you mention were added because of Delphi
> compatibility not because someone thought they are good. Florian even likened
> records with methods to a can of worms before they were implemented.
> On Jul 17, 2018, at 2:07 PM, Jim Lee wrote:
>
> And that's why I hesitate whenever someone comes along and says we should add
> to Pascal
I just want my life to be easier and to enjoy programming in Pascal as much as
possible. If I’m doing work I don’t have to, merely knowing that Pascal
Am 17.07.2018 um 20:00 schrieb Ryan Joseph:
On Jul 17, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Jim Lee wrote:
Likewise, "modern" programming languages are all converging on a common feature
set, like cultural cross-pollination.
if that’s our mindset then how do we account for times when we’ve actually
On 07/17/18 11:50, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Jul 17, 2018, at 12:24 PM, Jim Lee wrote:
It has to fit the spirit of the language as well.
I don’t propose new features to copy other languages but I’ll mention other
languages as evidence that more people than just myself have discovered some
On 17/07/2018 15:34, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Vojtěch Čihák wrote:
Hi,
Lazarus has option "Show Class/Proc Hint" which displays method name
(with light-green background) as the top line in source editor, only
if the method's body is longer than number of lines in
> On Jul 17, 2018, at 12:24 PM, Jim Lee wrote:
>
> It has to fit the spirit of the language as well.
I don’t propose new features to copy other languages but I’ll mention other
languages as evidence that more people than just myself have discovered some
merit to the concept (i.e. a form of
On 07/17/18 11:00, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Jul 17, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Jim Lee wrote:
Likewise, "modern" programming languages are all converging on a common feature
set, like cultural cross-pollination.
if that’s our mindset then how do we account for times when we’ve actually
identified
> On Jul 17, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Jim Lee wrote:
>
> Likewise, "modern" programming languages are all converging on a common
> feature set, like cultural cross-pollination.
if that’s our mindset then how do we account for times when we’ve actually
identified a common pattern that a language
Please, fpc-other please
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
On 07/17/18 07:49, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Worse, IMHO creeping unnecessary dialect change is worse than remaining
different. The spread of codebases over the various subdialects is worse than
any
benefits these half assed extensions can ever have. It is spreading language
development thin
On 07/17/18 04:56, Giuliano Colla wrote:
As everybody is suggesting new fpc features, I feel it right to add my
own proposal, to make the language more useful and user friendly.
I propose the support for the keyword "please".
The syntax is quite simple: "please:", followed by the
On 07/17/2018 11:56 AM, Giuliano Colla wrote:
A problem would be to determine the appropriate amount of politeness
accepted. >
Maybe a compiler option, such as -P0 (almost rude) to -P3 (extremely polite)?
Or up to -P7 for an increased granularity?
go the other way... a P9 is a weapon... to
> On Jul 16, 2018, at 11:20 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
> wrote:
>
> Because they are programmers. They simply do it their way. And I'm especially
> talking about code written by two different programmers, one storing the
> instance somewhere and the other passing in an "auto" instance
Il 17/07/2018 14:12, Karoly Balogh (Charlie/SGR) ha scritto:
I also propose that if you do not write "please" often enough,
the compiler would error out, claiming the user being too rude. But if
it's used too often, the source can be rejected for being excessively
polite.
A problem would be
Il 17/07/2018 16:06, Reimar Grabowski ha scritto:
I DO NOT beg the compiler for something, I command.
Then I would not be astonished if it turned out that you experience more
troubles than the average, such as unexpected sigsev, libraries not
found, unexpected shutdowns, and disk errors.
I
Marco van de Voort schrieb am Di., 17. Juli 2018, 16:50:
> To be honest, I'm wondering why Sven actually bothers to answer this
> nonsense.
>
Trust me, I wonder the same
Regards,
Sven
>
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
> However, I do wish that people wouldn't resort to that same old
> chestnut. There ought to be a Pascal discussion equivalent of Godwin's
> Law: "sooner or later in any debate about a language feature somebody
> will complain that it's too much
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:56:39 +0200
Giuliano Colla wrote:
> The syntax is quite simple: "please:", followed by the explanation in
> plain English (or whatever locale is selected) of what you want the
> compiler to do, makes the compiler generate the appropriate code.
Not against you but that's
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 12:04:19 +0200
Martin wrote:
> But more troubling:
> You do no longer have a complete list of all local vars. That means, if
> I want to add a (current style) local var "i", i may have to scan the
> entire procedure (maybe hundreds of lines) to find if there already is a
>
Maybe it should be extension of Code Explorer.
I did a quick calculation, I have 1680x1050 laptop display and I can see 40
lines of code in Source Editor, i.e. 39+1 method name for long methods.
If the var block has ~8 lines, then it would remain 31 lines for code, it is
still accepatable.
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Vojtěch Čihák wrote:
Hi,
Lazarus has option "Show Class/Proc Hint" which displays method name (with
light-green background) as the top line in source editor, only if the
method's body is longer than number of lines in source editor.
Maybe new option "Show Proc var
don't like looking at such C code, so why would I want that in Pascal
This is not my fight because TBH I'm inclined to avoid novel language
features until I know that using them won't impact on some of the older
kit I try to keep stuff compiled for.
However, I do wish that people wouldn't
Hi,
Lazarus has option "Show Class/Proc Hint" which displays method name (with
light-green background) as the top line in source editor, only if the method's body is
longer than number of lines in source editor.
Maybe new option "Show Proc var block" for permanent displaying var block in
Hi,
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Giuliano Colla wrote:
> As everybody is suggesting new fpc features, I feel it right to add my
> own proposal, to make the language more useful and user friendly.
>
> I propose the support for the keyword "please".
>
> The syntax is quite simple: "please:", followed by
As everybody is suggesting new fpc features, I feel it right to add my
own proposal, to make the language more useful and user friendly.
I propose the support for the keyword "please".
The syntax is quite simple: "please:", followed by the explanation in
plain English (or whatever locale is
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Henry Vermaak wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:07:10PM +0200, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:14:31AM +0200, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
If you need to "reduce the scope of variables", your routines are too long to
begin with.
If of course you
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Martin wrote:
On 17/07/2018 11:05, Henry Vermaak wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 03:02:42PM +0200, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
Santiago A. schrieb am Mo., 16. Juli 2018, 13:41:
I have some suggestions of change to freepascal syntax, just to debate
(All are
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:07:10PM +0200, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:14:31AM +0200, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> If you need to "reduce the scope of variables", your routines are too long to
> begin with.
>
> If of course you write routines of several hundreds of
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Henry Vermaak wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:07:42PM +0200, Martin wrote:
On 17/07/2018 12:02, Henry Vermaak wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:45:26AM +0200, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
>>*you* might do this, but there are enough developers that won't. I
On 17/07/2018 11:05, Henry Vermaak wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 03:02:42PM +0200, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
Santiago A. schrieb am Mo., 16. Juli 2018, 13:41:
I have some suggestions of change to freepascal syntax, just to debate
(All are backward compatible)
- Declaring variables
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:07:42PM +0200, Martin wrote:
> On 17/07/2018 12:02, Henry Vermaak wrote:
> >On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:45:26AM +0200, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
> >>*you* might do this, but there are enough developers that won't. I
> >>already
> >By not having this feature you're
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Martin wrote:
On 17/07/2018 12:02, Henry Vermaak wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:45:26AM +0200, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
*you* might do this, but there are enough developers that won't. I
already
By not having this feature you're not giving anyone a choice.
On 17/07/2018 12:02, Henry Vermaak wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:45:26AM +0200, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
*you* might do this, but there are enough developers that won't. I
already
By not having this feature you're not giving anyone a choice.
By having this feature you are
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Henry Vermaak wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:14:31AM +0200, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Henry Vermaak wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 03:02:42PM +0200, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
>>Santiago A. schrieb am Mo., 16. Juli 2018, 13:41:
>>
>>> I
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:45:26AM +0200, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
> Henry Vermaak schrieb am Di., 17. Juli 2018,
> 11:05:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 03:02:42PM +0200, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
> > > Santiago A. schrieb am Mo., 16. Juli 2018, 13:41:
> > >
> > > > I have some
Henry Vermaak schrieb am Di., 17. Juli 2018,
11:05:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 03:02:42PM +0200, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
> > Santiago A. schrieb am Mo., 16. Juli 2018, 13:41:
> >
> > > I have some suggestions of change to freepascal syntax, just to debate
> > >
> > > (All are backward
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:14:31AM +0200, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Henry Vermaak wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 03:02:42PM +0200, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
> >>Santiago A. schrieb am Mo., 16. Juli 2018, 13:41:
> >>
> >>> I have some suggestions of change to
On 17/07/18 09:15, Henry Vermaak wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 03:02:42PM +0200, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:> Santiago A. schrieb am Mo.,
16. Juli 2018, 13:41:> > > I have some suggestions of change to freepascal syntax, just to debate> >> > (All are
backward compatible)> >> > -
On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, Henry Vermaak wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 03:02:42PM +0200, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
Santiago A. schrieb am Mo., 16. Juli 2018, 13:41:
> I have some suggestions of change to freepascal syntax, just to debate
>
> (All are backward compatible)
>
> - Declaring
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 03:02:42PM +0200, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
> Santiago A. schrieb am Mo., 16. Juli 2018, 13:41:
>
> > I have some suggestions of change to freepascal syntax, just to debate
> >
> > (All are backward compatible)
> >
> > - Declaring variables inside blocks, and loop
In our previous episode, Santiago A. said:
> > And since the feature is implementable as an IDE macro (generating a nested
> > try except/finally) it doesn't make Ooccam's razor of usefulness to begin
> > with.
> The Occam's razor is that if it is so usefull that a macro is used a
> lot, why not
El 17/07/2018 a las 10:11, Marco van de Voort escribió:
In our previous episode, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal said:
interested in why it is not supported.
At least Delphi Tokyo (10.2) does not support it.
If I remember the discussion correctly it came to light that some users
would need "try ?
El 16/07/2018 a las 21:27, Marco van de Voort escribió:
In our previous episode, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal said:
function)
In such cases, you don't declare it "auto". Just as you don't free a
pointer in the function you declare it if you pass the instance to another
code that stores it beyond
In our previous episode, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal said:
> > interested in why it is not supported.
>
> At least Delphi Tokyo (10.2) does not support it.
>
> If I remember the discussion correctly it came to light that some users
> would need "try ? finally ? except ? end" while others would
On 17/07/18 06:16, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
> Am 16.07.2018 um 23:14 schrieb R0b0t1:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
>> wrote:
>>> Am 16.07.2018 um 19:55 schrieb R0b0t1:
> - Try except finally blocks
I can support this one, I am surprised it
50 matches
Mail list logo
