Just testing, please ignore.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>> If Frac(x) equals zero, will Int(x) cahnge the bitpattern of x then?
>> (Or: it cannot be gueranteed that this will not be the case?)
>
>
> That cannot be guaranteed.
OK.
Bart
___
fpc-pascal maill
On 15/05/18 13:14, Bart wrote:
If Frac(x) equals zero, will Int(x) cahnge the bitpattern of x then?
(Or: it cannot be gueranteed that this will not be the case?)
That cannot be guaranteed.
Jonas
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepasca
Bart schrieb am Di., 15. Mai 2018, 13:22:
> On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> > The only proper way is to use something like Math.SameValue(x, int(x)).
>
> B.t.w. the test suite for the new Int() function (win64)
> (
> https://svn.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/trunk/tests
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> The only proper way is to use something like Math.SameValue(x, int(x)).
B.t.w. the test suite for the new Int() function (win64)
(https://svn.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/trunk/tests/tbs/tb0644.pp?view=markup)
uses
47 function SameValue(
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 3:40 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> The only proper way is to use something like Math.SameValue(x, int(x)).
> Never use equality tests with floating point values, unless you are checking
> for a specific bit pattern (or if you know that the value can always be
> represented exac
On 11/05/18 23:59, Benito van der Zander wrote:
after all these discussions about the frac function, what is the best
way to test if there is a fractional part? That is the most common thing
I use frac for
I have always used frac(x) = 0
Is that worse or better than int(x) = x ?
The only p
Am 11.05.2018 um 23:59 schrieb Benito van der Zander:
> Hi,
>
> after all these discussions about the frac function, what is the best way to
> test if there is a
> fractional part? That is the most common thing I use frac for
>
> I have always used frac(x) = 0
>
> Is that worse or better than i
Hi,
after all these discussions about the frac function, what is the best
way to test if there is a fractional part? That is the most common thing
I use frac for
I have always used frac(x) = 0
Is that worse or better than int(x) = x ?
Benito
_
Thanks, I'll have a look at it.
On 2013/01/21 04:07 PM, Honza wrote:
> 2013/1/20 Paul Ishenin :
>> 20.01.13, 23:21, Wimpie Nortje пишет:
>>> Hi list
>>>
>>> I want to test membership of a unicode char in a set / array of unicode
>>> chars. Something like
>>>
>>> var ucCh: unicodechar;
>>>
>>> if u
2013/1/20 Paul Ishenin :
> 20.01.13, 23:21, Wimpie Nortje пишет:
>>
>> Hi list
>>
>> I want to test membership of a unicode char in a set / array of unicode
>> chars. Something like
>>
>> var ucCh: unicodechar;
>>
>> if ucCh in [ UnicodeChar('0')..UnicodeChar('9')] then
>> dosomething;
>>
>> I
Thanks, I had already written a CharInSet(UnicodeChar; UnicodeString)
function, but I hoped there were a language construct equivalent to the
ansi char method.
On 21 January 2013 10:32, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Paul Ishenin said:
> > >
> > > I am using fpc 2.6.0 and
In our previous episode, Paul Ishenin said:
> >
> > I am using fpc 2.6.0 and the '..' operator converts the data to a pascal
> > set, which is limited to 1 byte data.
> >
> > Is there another way?
> Delphi has CharInSet() function for this:
> http://docs.embarcadero.com/products/rad_studio/delphiA
20.01.13, 23:21, Wimpie Nortje пишет:
Hi list
I want to test membership of a unicode char in a set / array of unicode
chars. Something like
var ucCh: unicodechar;
if ucCh in [ UnicodeChar('0')..UnicodeChar('9')] then
dosomething;
I am using fpc 2.6.0 and the '..' operator converts the da
Hi list
I want to test membership of a unicode char in a set / array of unicode
chars. Something like
var ucCh: unicodechar;
if ucCh in [ UnicodeChar('0')..UnicodeChar('9')] then
dosomething;
I am using fpc 2.6.0 and the '..' operator converts the data to a pascal
set, which is limited to 1
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys
wrote:
> On 2012-11-05 13:07, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>>
>> This will not detect if no exception is raised, only if the right
>> exception is raised in case one is raised.
>
>
> You are correct. An extra test is needed just before the except blo
On 2012-11-05 13:07, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
> This will not detect if no exception is raised, only if the right
> exception is raised in case one is raised.
You are correct. An extra test is needed just before the except block.
As your example shows, simply calling Fail(...) if no exceptio
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 2012-11-05 12:49, ik wrote:
So how do I do it ?
Create a method of the test class, and pass that to AssertException.
Alternatively, do it manually as follows:
try
si.SetSlideName('001~z~1~a~4~d~1.1.2.swf');
si.SlideTypeDB;
except
On 2012-11-05 12:49, ik wrote:
>
> So how do I do it ?
Create a method of the test class, and pass that to AssertException.
Alternatively, do it manually as follows:
try
si.SetSlideName('001~z~1~a~4~d~1.1.2.swf');
si.SlideTypeDB;
except
on E: exception do
begin
CheckEq
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, ik wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, ik wrote:
Hello,
I wish to test if a method has raised an exception for a value
(something that should make the test pass) or not.
For example:
function TestNum(ch : Char) : By
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, ik wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I wish to test if a method has raised an exception for a value
>> (something that should make the test pass) or not.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> function TestNum(ch : Char) : Byte;
>> begi
On Mon, 5 Nov 2012, ik wrote:
Hello,
I wish to test if a method has raised an exception for a value
(something that should make the test pass) or not.
For example:
function TestNum(ch : Char) : Byte;
begin
if UpCase(ch) in ['A'..'F', '0'..'9'] then
...
else
raise Exception.Create('I
Hello,
I wish to test if a method has raised an exception for a value
(something that should make the test pass) or not.
For example:
function TestNum(ch : Char) : Byte;
begin
if UpCase(ch) in ['A'..'F', '0'..'9'] then
...
else
raise Exception.Create('Invalid char was given.');
end;
Am 26.04.2012 11:21 schrieb "Mark Morgan Lloyd" <
markmll.fpc-pas...@telemetry.co.uk>:
>
> Is it possible to test for the existence of a file, directory or package
at compilation time, i.e. {$if exists() or similar?
>
> The specific scenario I'm looking at is where I want to publish a couple
of pro
Is it possible to test for the existence of a file, directory or package
at compilation time, i.e. {$if exists() or similar?
The specific scenario I'm looking at is where I want to publish a couple
of projects on Berlios, and the functionality will differ depending on
whether a particular (Laz
On 09 Apr 2012, at 16:28, Alan Krause wrote:
> Indeed. You can put the following in your .bashrc file:
>
> export LD_LIBRARY_PAH=.
Make sure to never do that on a multi-user system, or you open yourself up to
easy hijacking of your account (in the same way that adding "." to your PATH
does).
On 09/04/12 17:28, Alan Krause wrote:
Indeed. You can put the following in your .bashrc file:
export LD_LIBRARY_PAH=.
Not recommended security wise, especially that it is needed for testing
only.
Stephano
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists
Indeed. You can put the following in your .bashrc file:
export LD_LIBRARY_PAH=.
Alan
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Tomas Hajny wrote:
> On 9 Apr 12, at 0:42, patspiper wrote:
>
> > Is it possible to test a shared library compiled with Lazarus/FPC under
> > Linux without copying that library
On 09/04/12 01:00, Tomas Hajny wrote:
On 9 Apr 12, at 0:42, patspiper wrote:
Is it possible to test a shared library compiled with Lazarus/FPC under
Linux without copying that library to /usr/lib or fiddling with the OS
configuration to locate them?
Under Windows, it is enough to have the test
On 9 Apr 12, at 0:42, patspiper wrote:
> Is it possible to test a shared library compiled with Lazarus/FPC under
> Linux without copying that library to /usr/lib or fiddling with the OS
> configuration to locate them?
>
> Under Windows, it is enough to have the testing executable (host
> appli
Is it possible to test a shared library compiled with Lazarus/FPC under
Linux without copying that library to /usr/lib or fiddling with the OS
configuration to locate them?
Under Windows, it is enough to have the testing executable (host
application) in the same folder as the shared library. I
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys
wrote:
> On 17 December 2011 18:03, Luciano de Souza wrote:
>> The idea of FPCUnit is really wonderful. I really would like to use it, but
>> Lazarus dependencies can complicate a lot.
>
> I have been a long time user of FPCUnit and even helped t
On 17 December 2011 18:03, Luciano de Souza wrote:
> The idea of FPCUnit is really wonderful. I really would like to use it, but
> Lazarus dependencies can complicate a lot.
I have been a long time user of FPCUnit and even helped to maintain
and improve it over the years. It has some design flaws
On 17 December 2011 18:33, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
> The necessary functionality is contained in the consoletestrunner unit.
I have long ago said this must move to the FPC repository, not live in
the Lazarus repository.
--
Regards,
- Graeme -
_
You would believe if I told you I could not compile yet?
It's not lack of effort, believe me. I really can't understand what is
failing.
See my compilation script:
@echo off
set compilerpath="c:\lazarus\fpc\2.4.4\bin\i386-win32\fpc.exe"
set unitpath="-Fuc:\lazarus\fpc\units\i386-win32\*
-Fuc
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:47:49 +0100
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Luciano de Souza wrote:
> > I can compile using callings like:
> > fpc test.pas
> > fpc -XX test.pas
> > fpc test.pas -Fu./pas -FE./exe
>
> You can compile Lazarus projects in the command li
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Luciano de Souza wrote:
> I can compile using callings like:
> fpc test.pas
> fpc -XX test.pas
> fpc test.pas -Fu./pas -FE./exe
You can compile Lazarus projects in the command line using lazbuild
which comes with Lazarus, like this:
lazbuild project.lpi
It will
Michael,
I have a meaningful peculiarity: I am blind and I use Freepascal only in
the console interface, reading all the output by means of my screen
reader. Lazarus and Freepascal console IDE are both inaccessible. But,
fortunately, for me, it's easy to call the compiler passing parameters
a
You see no test results, because the program file of your test
application is missing some essential things.
If you are using lazarus, simply create a new testing application:
First, make sure that package fpcunitide is installed.
Then, in the 'File-New' dialog, your testproject should be of
The article is very good, but it does not focuse on all aspects.
I have tried to create my first test example, but it didn't work. The
compilation is successful and the program is executed without errors.
However, I received no messages, informing the test has failed.
Actually, the test should
Perhaps becouse I am not an experienced programer, but the code sounds a
little complex. However, the effort will bring large bennefits.
Thank you very much for the article. It will help me a lot.
Em 16/12/2011 11:44, Michael Van Canneyt escreveu:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Vincent Snijders wrot
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Vincent Snijders wrote:
2011/12/16 luciano de souza :
Hello listers,
Navigating in FPC source codes, I found fpcunit. It's really
wonderful. With the tTestCase class, we can generate a report with
the success or the failure of our tests.
Is there documentation on the u
2011/12/16 luciano de souza :
> Hello listers,
>
> Navigating in FPC source codes, I found fpcunit. It's really
> wonderful. With the tTestCase class, we can generate a report with
> the success or the failure of our tests.
>
> Is there documentation on the usage of fpcunit? What is the best way
>
Hello listers,
Navigating in FPC source codes, I found fpcunit. It's really
wonderful. With the tTestCase class, we can generate a report with
the success or the failure of our tests.
However, only observing the source code, it's not easy to comprehend
how it works. I found a single parcial exam
2011/5/21 Mattias Gaertner :
> On Sat, 21 May 2011 15:33:04 +0200
> Johannes Nohl wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I wanted to test Lazarus (recent snapshot) with fpc 2.5.1 on
>> x86_64-linux. Therefore I need to build fpc-XXX.rpm and
>> fpc-src-XXX.rpm. I figured out how to bild fpc-XXX.rpm the easy way.
On Sat, 21 May 2011 15:33:04 +0200
Johannes Nohl wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I wanted to test Lazarus (recent snapshot) with fpc 2.5.1 on
> x86_64-linux. Therefore I need to build fpc-XXX.rpm and
> fpc-src-XXX.rpm. I figured out how to bild fpc-XXX.rpm the easy way.
>
> 1. Download fpcbuild.zip and ext
Hello,
I wanted to test Lazarus (recent snapshot) with fpc 2.5.1 on
x86_64-linux. Therefore I need to build fpc-XXX.rpm and
fpc-src-XXX.rpm. I figured out how to bild fpc-XXX.rpm the easy way.
1. Download fpcbuild.zip and extract it
2. inside root dir do fpcmake -T x86_64-linux
3. make rpm NODOCS
47 matches
Mail list logo
