Op Fri, 18 Jan 2008, schreef Bee:
Well, the statements so far went like this sub.sub.unit stuff is just .NET
crap, we won't implement any of those. ;)
I don't like that kind of attitude either. .Net is not crap as a whole, it
does have some good features and ability. If some of them are
On Friday 18 January 2008 12:35, Bee wrote:
Well, the statements so far went like this sub.sub.unit stuff is
just .NET crap, we won't implement any of those. ;)
I don't like that kind of attitude either. .Net is not crap as a
whole, it does have some good features and ability.
Yeah, right.
On Friday 18 January 2008 12:16, Michael Fuchs wrote:
Vinzent Hoefler schrieb:
I think more interesting are dots in unit name for making better
namespaces.
Actually, I'm thinking child units.
You mean like in Ada? Yes, this would be great.
Are there any plans to implement this in
On Friday 18 January 2008 12:17, Matt Emson wrote:
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
But even so, it still wouldn't help Bee, because he's not using it
for namespaces, he's using it as special names for version control.
This was the part I was attacking, if anyone else wondered.
No problem, I just
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Bee wrote:
For clarity: I am not against this dot by itself. I can only assure you, if
implemented, that it will not end up in 2.2.2.
As for implementing this feature: this is not so trivial as one might think.
1. The parser needs changing. That's probably the
Agreed, but, many things in .NET interfere with how things work in
Pascal. The .NET way of modular programming is totally different
compared with the Pascal unit system, therefore it would function as an
alien.
I came from Delphi (my last Delphi is the Turbo Delphi) before I switch
totally
On Jan 18, 2008, at 12:16 PM, Bee wrote:
And yes, I'd like to have implemented that (child units) in FPC.
What is child unit?
http://www.adaic.com/docs/95style/html/sec_4/4-1-1.html
--
Damien Gerard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Le temps n'a pas d'importance. Seul le code est important
--
And yes, I'd like to have implemented that (child units) in FPC.
What is child unit?
But even so, it still wouldn't help Bee, because he's not using it for
namespaces, he's using it as special names for version control. This
was the part I was attacking, if anyone else wondered.
It's
Vinzent Hoefler schrieb:
I think more interesting are dots in unit name for making better
namespaces.
Actually, I'm thinking child units.
You mean like in Ada? Yes, this would be great.
Are there any plans to implement this in future versions?
Micha
On Friday 18 January 2008 11:44, ik wrote:
Personally I do not want to see this feature in Pascal, because it
will just complicate things, because there is a use for dot in the
Pascal language...
Think records.
If you can have unit.identifier.record_field ad infinitum (any record
may
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Guillermo Martínez Jiménez wrote:
Hello everybody.
Recently I asked myself if Free Pascal has support for ncurses and
I've found it as an extra package.
I've take a peek at the ncurses.pp file and I've found it uses a lot
of external functions. That means this
On Friday 18 January 2008 11:48, Michael Fuchs wrote:
Bee schrieb:
Why cant FPC use unit that has (some) dot(s) within the file name?
Can FPC support it in the next release (2.2.2)?
I think more interesting are dots in unit name for making better
namespaces.
Actually, I'm thinking child
On Jan 18, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Bee wrote:
Hi all,
Why cant FPC use unit that has (some) dot(s) within the file name?
Can FPC support it in the next release (2.2.2)?
I think the dot is used in the grammar.
for example :
unit foo;
interface
procedure Print;
implementation
[...]
end.
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Bee wrote:
Use an underscore.
Ok, I need to learn a new habit then. I can live with that. Thanks, Michael.
:)
For clarity: I am not against this dot by itself. I can only assure you, if
implemented, that it will not end up in 2.2.2.
As for implementing this feature:
Personally I do not want to see this feature in Pascal, because it
will just complicate things, because there is a use for dot in the
Pascal language...
Feature is feature, you may use it, if you like, you may not, if you
don't. Doesn't need to make yourself got complicated. ;)
It's like the
On Friday 18 January 2008 12:01, Matt Emson wrote:
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Friday 18 January 2008 11:39, Bee wrote:
I used to use this feature on Turbo Delphi Explorer. But since I
totally switch to FPC/Laz and Ubuntu, I really missed this feature
on FPC. :(
No offense, but maybe
Bee schrieb:
Why cant FPC use unit that has (some) dot(s) within the file name? Can
FPC support it in the next release (2.2.2)?
I think more interesting are dots in unit name for making better namespaces.
If I have a class called TSpecialButton, I want a unit name like
On Jan 18, 2008 12:34 PM, Bee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably not. And if at all, it wouldn't accomplish what you want to do.
If someone would provide a patch for this, is it gonna be accepted? If
not, may I know what the reason(s)? ;)
unit_name.function () ...
...
How would you coap
Hello everybody.
Recently I asked myself if Free Pascal has support for ncurses and
I've found it as an extra package.
I've take a peek at the ncurses.pp file and I've found it uses a lot
of external functions. That means this package will not compile on
platforms that haven't a previous ncurses
Use an underscore.
Ok, I need to learn a new habit then. I can live with that. Thanks,
Michael. :)
-Bee-
has Bee.ography at:
http://beeography.wordpress.com
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Friday 18 January 2008 11:39, Bee wrote:
I used to use this feature on Turbo Delphi Explorer. But since I
totally switch to FPC/Laz and Ubuntu, I really missed this feature on
FPC. :(
No offense, but maybe this is a good time to start becoming a serious
Probably not. And if at all, it wouldn't accomplish what you want to do.
If someone would provide a patch for this, is it gonna be accepted? If
not, may I know what the reason(s)? ;)
Then use the branch/switch feature of your favourite version control
system. That's one thing it was
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Bee wrote:
Hi all,
Why cant FPC use unit that has (some) dot(s) within the file name? Can FPC
support it in the next release (2.2.2)?
No.
Sometimes I need to have some units for example: unit1.ori.pas and
unit1.modif.pas, which I need to switch to one of them but
On Friday 18 January 2008 11:16, Bee wrote:
Why cant FPC use unit that has (some) dot(s) within the file name?
Can FPC support it in the next release (2.2.2)?
Probably not. And if at all, it wouldn't accomplish what you want to do.
Sometimes I need to have some units for example:
Hi all,
Why cant FPC use unit that has (some) dot(s) within the file name? Can
FPC support it in the next release (2.2.2)?
Sometimes I need to have some units for example: unit1.ori.pas and
unit1.modif.pas, which I need to switch to one of them but never use
them both.
TIA.
-Bee-
has
The more important: What would the user gain from it?
I could gain my old bad habit again. LOL :-D
So, as far as I am concerned, putting effort into the development of
such flat namespaces - which, while enforced by the developer only, are
already there, but using underscores instead of dots
Well, the statements so far went like this sub.sub.unit stuff is
just .NET crap, we won't implement any of those. ;)
I don't like that kind of attitude either. .Net is not crap as a whole,
it does have some good features and ability. If some of them are really
good, then why not implement
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
CgpPbiBGcmksIDE4IEphbiAyMDA4LCBHdWlsbGVybW8gTWFydMOtbmV6IEppbcOpbmV6IHdyb3Rl
OgoKPiBIZWxsbyBldmVyeWJvZHkuCj4gCj4gUmVjZW50bHkgSSBhc2tlZCBteXNlbGYgaWYgRnJl
...
Er... Pardon?
___
fpc-pascal maillist -
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Fri, 18 Jan 2008, schreef Bee:
Both compilers [CAN] use the UCSD Pascal unit system,
I have added a missing word from that statement I think.
which, as of today is still one of the best modular programming
systems. That is the base to start from.
No, no it is
Op Fri, 18 Jan 2008, schreef Bee:
I don't use .Net, but supporting Delphi dot namespace doesn't need to stop
providing other functionality. Ideally, we should able to provide them both,
the Delphi way and the FPC way. Both are the most used pascal compiler
nowadays. ;)
As far as I am
Michael Van Canneyt schrieb:
unit Blah;
Namespace MyAPI.Blah;
And how will you know which namespace is in what unit (or file) ?
You then need a second structure mapping namespaces on filenames, making it
slower, bulkier and error prone. The cure is worse than the disease, IMHO.
You are
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Friday 18 January 2008 12:35, Bee wrote:
Namespaces are too flat and simply not powerful enough to justify the
implementation and maintenance effort.
And units are better because...?
I would take Namespaces over the crippled '80's unit notation any day.
Units
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Matt Emson wrote:
What is the difference ?
The second one saves on typing, which is a plus in my book ?
Right.. confusion over verbosity. Given two units called
Constants.pas, which one is the correct unit? Given a unit called
Utils.pas
Marco van de Voort wrote:
Michael Fuchs wrote:
But how can fpc find the unit which contains this namespace? I think
better is: Namespace = unit name = file name
It is easier to allow a dot in the unit name than writing code, which
search all units for the right naemspace.
The
Marco van de Voort wrote:
However again, as far as I understand partial classes (Class
Helpers in Delphi.NET), for this you need a registration system again because
you need
to compile all units that might use class X so that they auto import all
units with classhelpers for unit X. (or you have
I think if sb would waste time on it, and the patch is good quality it might
be added. Not because it is a good feature (afaik it is not), but out of
Delphi compat.
Good or bad is relative. FPC is about development tool, each user has
he's own good or bad way of programming. The more features
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Matt Emson wrote:
What is the difference ?
The second one saves on typing, which is a plus in my book ?
Right.. confusion over verbosity. Given two units called
Constants.pas, which one is the correct unit?
Give two the same classes
Well, the statements so far went like this sub.sub.unit stuff is
just .NET crap, we won't implement any of those. ;)
I don't like that kind of attitude either. .Net is not crap as a whole,
it does have some good features and ability. If some of them are really
good, then why not
On Friday 18 January 2008 14:06, Bee wrote:
The more features it has, the better for the users.
No. It's more like:
The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from.
-- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
(And yes, that was meant ironically.)
Vinzent.
Jonas wrote:
The magic word would be scope here. It's the same as with using two
different units including the same identifier twice.
Yes and no, of course it will work, but might be counterintuitive.
uses x, a.b.c;
a.b.c.d.
if x also contains an identifier a.
error :
Op Fri, 18 Jan 2008, schreef Michael Van Canneyt:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Fri, 18 Jan 2008, schreef Michael Van Canneyt:
To the user, it may appear as a bunch of dots. To the compiler, it doesn't
know how to map the a.b.c.d:
Well, with normal Pascal rules, you
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Fri, 18 Jan 2008, schreef Vinzent Hoefler:
On Friday 18 January 2008 16:04, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Fri, 18 Jan 2008, schreef Michael Van Canneyt:
To the user, it may appear as a bunch of dots. To the compiler,
it
On 1/18/08, Vinzent Höfler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand:
uses a;
var a:byte;
... both unit a as variable a would go into the global symtable, which
is the same lexical level, thus causing duplicate identifier conflicts.
In Ada the fully qualified name of the
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Friday 18 January 2008 15:19, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
I saw this week a CodeGear Guy in a cg ng talking about that.
In Win32 its is Just dots in the name, nothing else.
If he said that, he is totally braindead and doesn't have a
On Friday 18 January 2008 14:56, Matt Emson wrote:
I would say, remove unit replace with Namespace and all would be
fine.
And the same as before, just with a different syntax.
Vinzent.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Fri, 18 Jan 2008, schreef Vinzent Höfler:
Maybe my view is skewed too much by the use of Ada where even a
function declares a record identifier. In Ada it is even possible to
do:
---
procedure Test is
X : Integer;
procedure B is
X : Integer;
begin
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
You are wrong. It does not compile, neither in delphi, nor in FPC.
D is not found, because 'A' resolves to the local a, and then the
search is stopped.
Ok, I think I got it. It's probably the same reason why in
---
procedure Foo (const A : My_Type); overload;
On Friday 18 January 2008 13:22, Matt Emson wrote:
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Friday 18 January 2008 12:35, Bee wrote:
Namespaces are too flat and simply not powerful enough to justify
the implementation and maintenance effort.
And units are better because...?
*Child* units are better,
On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 12:02 +0100, Guillermo Martínez Jiménez wrote:
Hello everybody.
Recently I asked myself if Free Pascal has support for ncurses and
I've found it as an extra package.
There is also an ncrt unit. If all your looking at is the ability
to run the program on different
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 11:47 +0100, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Thursday 17 January 2008 01:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question. Is this font accessible from linux; do I have
to be root ?
Yes. Yes.
/dev/mem should be
Michael Fuchs wrote:
But how can fpc find the unit which contains this namespace? I think
better is: Namespace = unit name = file name
It is easier to allow a dot in the unit name than writing code, which
search all units for the right naemspace.
The filename would be MyAPI.Blah.pas as you
Op Fri, 18 Jan 2008, schreef Vinzent Höfler:
Maybe my view is skewed too much by the use of Ada where even a function
declares a record identifier. In Ada it is even possible to do:
---
procedure Test is
X : Integer;
procedure B is
X : Integer;
begin
X := 1;
Recently I asked myself if Free Pascal has support for ncurses and
I've found it as an extra package.
I've take a peek at the ncurses.pp file and I've found it uses a lot
of external functions. That means this package will not compile on
platforms that haven't a previous ncurses
On Thu, 2008-01-17 at 15:32 +, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
The question. Is this font accessible from linux; do I have
to be root ?How do I make the 16 bit segment/offset address
into a 32 bit pointer to access these fonts ?
This font is not
If you request for features please come up with something realistic and also
provide good
information how it then should work. E.g. provide grammar how the syntax and
semantics work. And
if it is for compatibility you should also be able to provide real pascal
examples that show how
ambigious
Michael Fuchs wrote:
But how can fpc find the unit which contains this namespace? I think
better is: Namespace = unit name = file name
It is easier to allow a dot in the unit name than writing code, which
search all units for the right naemspace.
The filename would be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Damien Gerard wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008, at 11:54 AM, Ezequiel Tacsir wrote:
I was used to wok with freepascal on windows. Now, I have switch to
mac (10.5) and would like to know what are the things that I need to
have it running. If anybody can send me a basic
57 matches
Mail list logo
