Re: [fpc-pascal] Cross-compiling for a different Mac OS X version (was: Re: OT: Buy a Mac to develop for MacOS? Which one?)

2008-10-14 Thread John Stoneham
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Jonas Maebe [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On 13 Oct 2008, at 02:42, John Stoneham wrote: Until Apple makes a 17 MacBook Pro Well, they already do, albeit with a lower resolution than your Dell. I suppose I should say, until I can afford one, heh? They do

Re: [fpc-pascal] OT: Buy a Mac to develop for MacOS? Which one?

2008-10-13 Thread John Stoneham
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 10:09 AM, Lukas Gradl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! 1.) Do I really need to buy a Mac? Or is there a good solution to emulate one on an x86 Linux box? Just crosscompiling without the possibility to do serious tests in house is not an option, as my app has to integrate

Re: [fpc-pascal] child units (was: dot within unit file name)

2008-01-22 Thread John Stoneham
On Jan 22, 2008 2:48 AM, Marco van de Voort [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip] ... an import of complexnumbers in one place might suddenly react differently due to the partial module/classhelper) Then you misunderstand the concept. While it's true that child packages are similar to nested

[fpc-pascal] child units (was: dot within unit file name)

2008-01-21 Thread John Stoneham
On Jan 21, 2008 1:05 AM, Vinzent Hoefler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 18 January 2008 20:12, John Stoneham wrote: [snip] So, the only difference is that Ada plays it safe and complains about ambiguities while a Pascal compiler tries to resolve the ambiguity by itself Perhaps that's

Re: RES: [fpc-pascal] dot within unit file name

2008-01-18 Thread John Stoneham
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

Re: [fpc-pascal] Notice: Possible copyright infringements in FPC code base

2008-01-17 Thread John Stoneham
On Jan 16, 2008 2:42 PM, Michael Van Canneyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The suspect routines are mostly in the classes unit. In the component streaming system, to be exact. This code is of course available in the GPL-ed CLX... Note also that the CLX is under some kind of dual license: GPL or the

Re: [fpc-pascal] Notice: Possible copyright infringements in FPC code base

2008-01-16 Thread John Stoneham
On Jan 16, 2008 3:42 AM, Tiziano De Togni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Could you please tell me if there is a real chance that CodeGear asks money for a concrete copyright violation to someone of the FPC or Lazarus developers? And in this case, how this claim could be performed? Well, one

Re: [fpc-pascal] Notice: Possible copyright infringements in FPC code base

2008-01-15 Thread John Stoneham
Sorry if I'm a little late to this discussion. I just wanted to let you know that I am an attorney and have handled copyright infringement cases in the US (most recently the SONY vs. Crain music piracy case). As a hobby programmer and FPC/Lazarus enthusiast, I would be more than happy to review,

Re: [fpc-pascal] Notice: Possible copyright infringements in FPC code base

2008-01-15 Thread John Stoneham
On Jan 15, 2008 6:16 AM, Michael Van Canneyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The initial accusations were published on a Blog of some former Borland employee or afficionado. He contacted codegear, apparently, and then a codegear official (Alan Bauer) contacted some of the FPC team members by private