28.10.2021 0:33, Bart via lazarus пишет:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 11:17 PM Juha Manninen via lazarus
wrote:
Attached the codetools popup for TMask.Create constructor.
I would think it would be clear enough?
It is clear for people who know the details already. For new users there is no
hint
28.10.2021 0:17, Juha Manninen via lazarus пишет:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:02 AM Bart via lazarus
mailto:lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org>>
wrote:
Attached the codetools popup for TMask.Create constructor.
I would think it would be clear enough?
Ok, if you say so. :)
It is clear for
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 11:17 PM Juha Manninen via lazarus
wrote:
>> Attached the codetools popup for TMask.Create constructor.
>> I would think it would be clear enough?
> It is clear for people who know the details already. For new users there is
> no hint of an extended syntax.
> Anyway, we
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:02 AM Bart via lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
> Attached the codetools popup for TMask.Create constructor.
> I would think it would be clear enough?
>
Ok, if you say so. :)
It is clear for people who know the details already. For new users there is
no
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 9:55 PM Juha Manninen via lazarus
wrote:
> The idea was only to offer an intuitive API which gives a hint there is
> something extended available, just like CreateLegacy() gave a hint there is
> the good old legacy syntax available.
Attached the codetools popup for
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 10:06 PM Bart via lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
> You totally lost me here.
> IMHO there is no need for CreateExtende or similar new constructor.
>
Why not?
THis is what we currently have.
>
> TMask:
> constructor Create(const aMask: String;
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 8:46 PM Juha Manninen via lazarus
wrote:
> There would be a constructor named CreateExtended or CreateAdvanced or
> similar, allowing the new nice syntax.
You totally lost me here.
IMHO there is no need for CreateExtende or similar new constructor.
THis is what we
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 6:44 PM Bart via lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
> > The extended syntax would have another constructor.
>
> Not really sure what you mean by that.
>
There would be a constructor named CreateExtended or CreateAdvanced or
similar, allowing the new nice
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:09 PM Juha Manninen via lazarus
wrote:
>> Wouldn't is be a bit more logical to exclude mocEscapeChar form the
>> MaskOpCodesDefaultAllowed constant, since we'ld like to have the
>> default behaviour as compatible as possible?
>
>
> That is fine with me. The Create
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:50 PM Bart via lazarus <
lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
> The new masks unit has several CreateLegacy constructors (and some
> *Legacy* functions).
> They call the new constructros with mocEscapeChar disabled.
>
> Wouldn't is be a bit more logical to exclude
Hi,
The new masks unit has several CreateLegacy constructors (and some
*Legacy* functions).
They call the new constructros with mocEscapeChar disabled.
Wouldn't is be a bit more logical to exclude mocEscapeChar form the
MaskOpCodesDefaultAllowed constant, since we'ld like to have the
default
11 matches
Mail list logo