Am 11.01.2011 22:42, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
Marcos Douglas schrieb:
So if rxlib would take the namespace rx (on top of units), and someone
else did also take that namespace, then you have the same problem
You right... but, of course at Namespaces will be much longer than rx!
The
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 21:09, Marcos Douglas m...@delfire.net wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
Duplicate identifiers are used in the same unit in very rare cases only, so
that normally a qualification is not necessary at all.
Rare
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Alexander Klenin kle...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 21:09, Marcos Douglas m...@delfire.net wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
Duplicate identifiers are used in the same unit in very rare cases
On 12.01.2011, 17:48 Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Alexander Klenin kle...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 21:09, Marcos Douglas m...@delfire.net wrote:
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 6:03 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
Duplicate identifiers
Marcos Douglas schrieb:
And if we can rename, in the code, the names of the units then it
would be perfect, IMHO.
Like this:
uses
CompanyXYZ_StdCtrls as xyzctrls;
That looks a bit like Modula to me.
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Andreas Schneider ak...@gmx.de wrote:
... which you can already do. The unit order in the uses clause
already determines which identifier is chosen when you do *not*
specify a unit explicitly. So just make sure that LCL's TButton is
always
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Jürgen Hestermann
juergen.hesterm...@gmx.de wrote:
Marcos Douglas schrieb:
And if we can rename, in the code, the names of the units then it
would be perfect, IMHO.
Like this:
uses
CompanyXYZ_StdCtrls as xyzctrls;
That looks a bit like Modula to me.
Sven Barth schrieb:
When namespaces correspond to unit names, i.e. disk files, a
disambiguation is always possible by adding the parent directory to the
unit name. This is not implemented, because there never existed an
urgent need for such an extension, but it would always end up in unique
Marcos Douglas schrieb:
And if we can rename, in the code, the names of the units then it
would be perfect, IMHO.
Like this:
uses
CompanyXYZ_StdCtrls as xyzctrls;
That looks a bit like Modula to me.
I do not know Modula. This is good, in Modula?!
Marcos Douglas m...@delfire.net hat am 12. Januar 2011 um 18:05 geschrieben:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Andreas Schneider ak...@gmx.de wrote:
... which you can already do. The unit order in the uses clause
already determines which identifier is chosen when you do
2011/1/12 Mattias Gaertner nc-gaert...@netcologne.de:
But I can register a component called TButton?
No, that would conflict with the LCL TButton. See the FCL function
FindClass.
I know.
Because that I proposed the Lazarus put the unit name in the code,
automatic...
Just use the right
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:00:51 -0300
Marcos Douglas m...@delfire.net wrote:
2011/1/12 Mattias Gaertner nc-gaert...@netcologne.de:
But I can register a component called TButton?
No, that would conflict with the LCL TButton. See the FCL function
FindClass.
I know.
Because that I
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Mattias Gaertner
nc-gaert...@netcologne.de wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 15:00:51 -0300
Marcos Douglas m...@delfire.net wrote:
2011/1/12 Mattias Gaertner nc-gaert...@netcologne.de:
But I can register a component called TButton?
No, that would conflict with
On 12.01.2011 18:24, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Marcos Douglas m...@delfire.net hat am 12. Januar 2011 um 18:05 geschrieben:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Andreas Schneider ak...@gmx.de wrote:
... which you can already do. The unit order in the uses clause
already determines which
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 12.01.2011 18:24, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Marcos Douglas m...@delfire.net hat am 12. Januar 2011 um 18:05
geschrieben:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Andreas Schneider ak...@gmx.de
wrote:
... which
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 04:57:43PM -0300, Marcos Douglas wrote:
is still an option.
Right! But you saw what I written in first mail of this thread?
See:
If units are namespaces, why not use them in widgets declarations,
automatic, in Lazarus?
Why would you? If the number of identifier
2011/1/10 Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
mich...@freepascal.org wrote:
The prefix is not needed. It makes it easier, but is by no means a
requirement, as long as you keep the unit
On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:50 AM, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 04:57:43PM -0300, Marcos Douglas wrote:
is still an option.
Right! But you saw what I written in first mail of this thread?
See:
If units are namespaces, why not use them in widgets
Marcos Douglas schrieb:
Working with items of the same name, from different locations (units,
namespaces), requires qualifications all over. That waste of characters in
source code makes code less readable to me.
Waste of characters? Not really. Write xyz.TFoo is not so different of
TxyzFoo.
Andrew Brunner schrieb:
ns is where I plan to put my parent namespace. All other
structs/consts/defaults/enums/ etc will be declared there and under
children of ns (globals there and children have their own from that
point on...).
You can apply that to your unit names as well.
With
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 10:57:39AM -0600, Andrew Brunner wrote:
NS_APP_FIELDS=NameSpace
const
VALUE1 = 'VAL1';
VALUE2 = 'Val2';
VALUE3 = 3;
end;
I recognize it doesn't change much, but it would sure look more
industry standardized if this would work.
While one can discuss if
Am 09.01.2011 19:56, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
Why this? Well, we would not need to use prefixes in the names of our
widgets. I could develop a widget called TEdit too, but using my own
unit.
All existing form objects are stored in Application.CustomForms[], and
their controls in
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
Marcos Douglas schrieb:
If units are namespaces, why not use them in widgets declarations,
automatic, in Lazarus?
When we droped a widget in a Form, ie a TEdit, the declarion would be like
this:
TForm1 =
Marcos Douglas schrieb:
I'm not talk about RTTI but style, make code more readable and less
duplication of names.
Working with items of the same name, from different locations (units,
namespaces), requires qualifications all over. That waste of characters
in source code makes code less
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 9:43 AM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
drdiettri...@aol.com wrote:
Marcos Douglas schrieb:
I'm not talk about RTTI but style, make code more readable and less
duplication of names.
Working with items of the same name, from different locations (units,
namespaces), requires
On 10/01/2011 18:51, Marcos Douglas wrote:
Working with items of the same name, from different locations (units,
namespaces), requires qualifications all over. That waste of characters in
source code makes code less readable to me.
Waste of characters? Not really. Write xyz.TFoo is not so
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
mich...@freepascal.org wrote:
The prefix is not needed. It makes it easier, but is by no means a
requirement, as long as you keep the unit names separate.
Compare
Edit1 : myedit.tedit
to
Edit1 : tmyedit
In the second case, you'll
So namespaces: yes, nice to have.
But do they solve an urgent problem ? I don't think so.
Michael.
I agree. I was using C# for a while and that's when I got used to the
idea that I could group consts and methods not associated with
objects. I have only one unit that HEAVILY uses namespaces
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Martin laza...@mfriebe.de wrote:
Ideas about namespaces have ben collected before
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Namespaces
But in the end, iirc none of them solves the problem. They just move the
problem to the next level.
And speaking of
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Marcos Douglas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
mich...@freepascal.org wrote:
The prefix is not needed. It makes it easier, but is by no means a
requirement, as long as you keep the unit names separate.
Compare
Edit1 : myedit.tedit
to
If units are namespaces, why not use them in widgets declarations,
automatic, in Lazarus?
When we droped a widget in a Form, ie a TEdit, the declarion would be like this:
TForm1 = class(Form)
Edit1: StdCtrls.TEdit;
end;
Why this? Well, we would not need to use prefixes in the names of our
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Brunner
andrew.t.brun...@gmail.com wrote:
I just started leveraging this fact in my project. The complaint I
bring is that I don't want to use a class object. I want a dedicated
NameSpace as a reserved word.
ie.)
NS_APP_FIELDS=class
const
VALUE1 =
Am 09.01.2011 16:11, schrieb Marcos Douglas:
If units are namespaces, why not use them in widgets declarations,
automatic, in Lazarus?
[...]
All most developers use prefixes in yours classes and functions.
Pascal not is C and don't need this. So, why do that?
Maybe the unit names should be
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Marcos Douglas m...@delfire.net wrote:
And what about procedures/functions? This problem isn't just about
classes...
In C, all the indentifiers would be unique, but not in Pascal. We have
units (namespace) so, why use prefixes like TxyzEdit? Why not use, for
Marcos Douglas schrieb:
If units are namespaces, why not use them in widgets declarations,
automatic, in Lazarus?
When we droped a widget in a Form, ie a TEdit, the declarion would be like this:
TForm1 = class(Form)
Edit1: StdCtrls.TEdit;
end;
IMO control classes have to be registered, so
35 matches
Mail list logo
