May be it would be safer to read the list of sections with INI.ReadSections
and then delete each section with INI.EraseSection ?
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025, Hairy Pixels via fpc-pascal wrote:
On Jul 28, 2025 at 10:13:20 AM, Martin Frb via fpc-pascal <
fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
Or have array element index done different?
type TFooArray = array (.0..9.) of Byte;
SomeFooArray(.3.) := 1;
Oh wait, that compil
On Jul 28, 2025 at 10:13:20 AM, Martin Frb via fpc-pascal <
fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> Or have array element index done different?
> type TFooArray = array (.0..9.) of Byte;
> SomeFooArray(.3.) := 1;
>
> Oh wait, that compiles. ;)
>
never saw that before! so ugly too. Why do
Travis Siegel via fpc-pascal schrieb am
Mo., 28. Juli 2025, 15:42:
>
> Take for instance, comments.
>
> { this is a comment}
>
> works just as well as
>
> (* this is a comment *)
>
> I don't believe I've ever seen you complain about multiple ways to put
> comments in the code
>
That is a bad exa
Pierre Muller via fpc-pascal schrieb am
Mo., 28. Juli 2025, 15:27:
>
>
> Le 28/07/2025 à 10:07, Michalis Kamburelis via fpc-pascal a écrit :
> > Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >> Personally, I prefer the backtick solution.
> >> The triple quote is slow, it requires postprocessing the string.
> >> T
On 28/07/2025 17:59, Michalis Kamburelis via fpc-pascal wrote:
Moreover, in case of multi-line comments, the additional confusion
(which I still think is possible) is because there are {$xxx} compiler
directives changing their behavior, and some of them apply only to
backtick-style, some only to
> Your argument makes no sense. There's always been multiple ways to do
> many things in pascal, and it's never caused any more confusion than any
> other typical language construct.
I don't think the comparison to "multiple ways to write a comment" is
proper here. Because various ways to write c
On Jul 28, 2025 at 9:12:53 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
> Because the amount of whitespace to remove at the start of every line
> is determined by the amount of spaces before the closing triple quotes.
>
> Ergo, you can only strip the whitespaces at the start of every line
> after the whole st
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025, Hairy Pixels via fpc-pascal wrote:
On Jul 28, 2025 at 1:04:49 AM, Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal <
fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
Personally, I prefer the backtick solution.
The triple quote is slow, it requires postprocessing the string.
The backtick soluti
Actually, in Pascal (* and *) came before { }. But this is quite off topic for
this thread, so let's leave it.
Doug C.
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025 10:41:31 -0400 Hairy Pixels via fpc-pascal
wrote ---
On Jul 28, 2025 at 8:24:38 AM, Brian via fpc-pascal <
mailto:fpc-pascal@lists.freepasc
On Jul 28, 2025 at 8:24:38 AM, Brian via fpc-pascal <
fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> The two ways to do comments are, IMO, almost essential. The way I was
> taught to write Pascal, about 45 years ago now, was to use braces for
> comments - but then if you needed to comment out a whole
On 7/28/25 09:26, Travis Siegel via fpc-pascal wrote:
Your argument makes no sense. There's always been multiple ways to do
many things in pascal, and it's never caused any more confusion than
any other typical language construct.
Take for instance, comments.
{ this is a comment}
works jus
On Jul 28, 2025 at 1:04:49 AM, Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal <
fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> Personally, I prefer the backtick solution.
> The triple quote is slow, it requires postprocessing the string.
> The backtick solution needs only one pass.
>
>
> I positively HATE it whe
On Jul 28, 2025 at 7:26:08 AM, Travis Siegel via fpc-pascal <
fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> Your argument makes no sense. There's always been multiple ways to do
> many things in pascal, and it's never caused any more confusion than any
> other typical language construct.
>
> Take fo
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025, Pierre Muller via fpc-pascal wrote:
Le 28/07/2025 à 10:07, Michalis Kamburelis via fpc-pascal a écrit :
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Personally, I prefer the backtick solution.
The triple quote is slow, it requires postprocessing the string.
The backtick solution needs o
On 7/27/2025 7:24 PM, David Connolly via fpc-pascal wrote:
Personally, I prefer the back tick, but they're both excellent
additions to the language.
As do I.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/c
Your argument makes no sense. There's always been multiple ways to do
many things in pascal, and it's never caused any more confusion than any
other typical language construct.
Take for instance, comments.
{ this is a comment}
works just as well as
(* this is a comment *)
I don't believe I
Le 28/07/2025 à 10:07, Michalis Kamburelis via fpc-pascal a écrit :
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Personally, I prefer the backtick solution.
The triple quote is slow, it requires postprocessing the string.
The backtick solution needs only one pass.
I positively HATE it when people start treati
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025, DougC via fpc-pascal wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal < mailto:fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org >
schrieb am Mo., 28. Juli 2025, 11:21:
If this argument is to carry any weight, then we also need to remove
all instances where FPC did things differently from Delph
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal
schrieb am Mo., 28. Juli 2025, 11:21:
If this argument is to carry any weight, then we also need to remove
all instances where FPC did things differently from Delphi:
[snip]
- anonymous functions expl
Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal < mailto:fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org >
schrieb am Mo., 28. Juli 2025, 11:21:
If this argument is to carry any weight, then we also need to remove
all instances where FPC did things differently from Delphi:
False. This argument still carries considerab
Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal
schrieb am Mo., 28. Juli 2025, 11:21:
> If this argument is to carry any weight, then we also need to remove
> all instances where FPC did things differently from Delphi:
>
> [snip]
> - anonymous functions explicitly are interfaces.
> [snip]
Anonymous function
Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-pascal
schrieb am Mo., 28. Juli 2025, 09:05:
> The solution is simple:
> if you don't like the backticks, don't use them.
>
Independent of the specific feature this is not a good argument, because
more often than not one has to work with third party code, thus one
def
I'm having an issue with TIniFile,
I have a pretty simple procedure, It deletes the old .ini file, waits for
it to be gone, creates a new one, writes a bunch of variables to it, then
frees it. It works 99% of the time, but 1% of the time it crashes right in
the middle of writing the file. The
> But pas2js exists, I believe it is important, and that explains my decision.
OK. I will have to accept this decision :) Well I see your arguments
(Pas2js compatibility + you feel Delphi design is "horror" :) ). Even
if I do see a different decision as more optimal.
For the sake of clarity, I do
On Mon, 28 Jul 2025, Michalis Kamburelis via fpc-pascal wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Personally, I prefer the backtick solution.
The triple quote is slow, it requires postprocessing the string.
The backtick solution needs only one pass.
I positively HATE it when people start treating
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> Personally, I prefer the backtick solution.
> The triple quote is slow, it requires postprocessing the string.
> The backtick solution needs only one pass.
>
>
> I positively HATE it when people start treating whitespace as
> significant. No YAML or Python for me on th
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025, Michalis Kamburelis wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Let's delete custom very special FPC variant with ticks. leave only Delphi
variant, please. in English it is maybe called as 'align implementation with
Delphi'.
It is aligned with Delphi ?
why? to keep the same so
28 matches
Mail list logo
