- "Sven Barth" schreef:
> Am 04.11.2011 11:15, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
> > William Oliveira Ferreira schrieb:
> >> Sorry about my low knowlegde, maybe i am the most slow-learning
> mailer
> >> of this list but i don't understand the advantage of using dots on
> >> unit name. Could some
On 5 November 2011 15:36, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
>
> We are not like Mono which blindly follows their master.
Sometimes I would have to disagree with you on that statement. :)
This is both a problem for the Lazarus project and the FPC project. I
even remember somebody saying "if Emba
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho schrieb:
You wrote:
Lazarus is even more problematic, since it cannot load a
different component library dynamically, instead it must be rebuilt for a
different FMCL.
So I show a screenshot proving that you don't need to use the IDE in
Windows CE to write Windows
Sven Barth schrieb:
Am 05.11.2011 12:04, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
The Delphi fm.forms.pas vs. vcl.forms.pas names suggest to me, that
FireMonkey could not be integrated into the VCL, so that LCL integration
is questionable.
Did you ever come to the conclusion that Embarcadero didn't WANT
Paul Ishenin schrieb:
05.11.11 19:04, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
My point was: *when* a widgetset can be added to the LCL, then no
problem.
The Delphi fm.forms.pas vs. vcl.forms.pas names suggest to me, that
FireMonkey could not be integrated into the VCL, so that LCL integration
is question
05.11.11 21:34, dmitry boyarintsev пишет:
Hello,
I'm wondering if for the sake of backward compatibility people will
start to ask (Embarcadero) to map dotted names to a single name (i.e.
Rtl.SysUtils -> sysutils).
It is available today if you use "unit scope names" option in IDE or
using a c
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Paul Ishenin wrote:
> We are not planing to add another framework to lazarus (firemonkey like or
> another) or support firemoney development in Lazarus.
+1 FireMonkey integration in the LCL is both a fiction (as in I never
heard anyone say he would work on it) and
Hello,
I'm wondering if for the sake of backward compatibility people will
start to ask (Embarcadero) to map dotted names to a single name (i.e.
Rtl.SysUtils -> sysutils).
thanks,
Dmitry
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
Am 04.11.2011 15:51, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
Embarcadero could not provide designers for FireMonkey right now, and
Lazarus will run into the same problem - as can be seen with the fpGui
widgetset (which is more LCL compatible than FireMonkey or KsDev).
Embarcadero failed with a VCL.NET, now
Am 05.11.2011 12:04, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
The Delphi fm.forms.pas vs. vcl.forms.pas names suggest to me, that
FireMonkey could not be integrated into the VCL, so that LCL integration
is questionable.
Did you ever come to the conclusion that Embarcadero didn't WANT
FireMonkey to be int
Am 04.11.2011 22:52, schrieb leledumbo:
From the CodeRage 6 videos all I could see is that they now
differentiate between VCL (eg: vcl.forms.pas) and FireMonkey (eg:
fm.forms.pas) units.
Too bad... now they will face problems when refactoring the framework,
possibly causing users to create ifd
05.11.11 19:04, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
My point was: *when* a widgetset can be added to the LCL, then no problem.
The Delphi fm.forms.pas vs. vcl.forms.pas names suggest to me, that
FireMonkey could not be integrated into the VCL, so that LCL integration
is questionable.
Why do you care
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
wrote:
> I know what problems result from controls with incompatible properties, not
> expected by the designer or OI :-(
Using a different LCL Widgetset then the one that the IDE uses cannot
generate problems with the designer. This is impossi
leledumbo schrieb:
I cannot confirm that, seeing no such option in the IDE.
Well, do you have it installed? Or at least have you read
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/KOL-CE this ?
My point was: *when* a widgetset can be added to the LCL, then no problem.
The Delphi fm.forms.pas vs. vcl.f
e-pascal-lazarus.989080.n3.nabble.com/Lazarus-Support-for-dotted-unit-name-tp3476470p3481354.html
Sent from the Free Pascal - Lazarus mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
___
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.
> I cannot confirm that, seeing no such option in the IDE.
Well, do you have it installed? Or at least have you read
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/KOL-CE this ?
--
View this message in context:
http://free-pascal-lazarus.989080.n3.nabble.com/Lazarus-Support-for-dotted-unit-n
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho schrieb:
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
wrote:
Lazarus only supports one GUI: LCL.
False, KOL-CE works in Lazarus too.
I cannot confirm that, seeing no such option in the IDE.
The new strings also are an FPC issue, which may require a diff
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
wrote:
> Lazarus only supports one GUI: LCL.
False, KOL-CE works in Lazarus too.
> The new strings also are an FPC issue, which may require a different LCL.
Based on what you say that? I fixed trunk usage with FPC 2.7 today
with trivial chang
Sven Barth schrieb:
Am 04.11.2011 13:08, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
Sven Barth schrieb:
I don't think that Embarcadero considers dotted unit names as a relict
as they've improved the concept with a "default namespace" in XE2 (I
don't know whether I personally consider that as a improvement
"Christian-W. Budde" hat am 4. November 2011 um
13:04 geschrieben:
> Hello,
>
> > This is the explanation for using unitname.identifier, which worked
> > since many years.
> >
> > Dotted unit name means dots in the unit name itself. For example
> > an.example.pas. I don't know a good example
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
wrote:
> Well, so what's the role of "Delphi" at all? What remains is an IDE and a
> compiler, with various GUI extensions.
Lazarus is already usable with 3rd party libraries, like KOL-CE works.
It also has non-GUI extensions, like fcl-web. Tha
Am 04.11.2011 13:08, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
Sven Barth schrieb:
I don't think that Embarcadero considers dotted unit names as a relict
as they've improved the concept with a "default namespace" in XE2 (I
don't know whether I personally consider that as a improvement though
^^) and also i
Am 04.11.2011 13:04, schrieb Christian-W. Budde:
I have never used .NET, nor am I a Delphi fan-boy, but I think this
scoping is useful and I hope it will be supported by FPC. It is
discussable, whether it shall be used in Lazarus, but it should be
supported.
In 2.7.1 this is already supported,
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
wrote:
> There exist more relicts from .NET, like Unicode names for identifiers.
Unlike dots in unit names, this feature is useful for people in a
general way, not just for .Net / Java compatibility. Pretty much every
programmer which isnt flu
Hello,
> This is the explanation for using unitname.identifier, which worked
> since many years.
>
> Dotted unit name means dots in the unit name itself. For example
> an.example.pas. I don't know a good example.
For me, this makes perfect sense, because of many reasons. Here are a
couple.
I wor
Sven Barth schrieb:
I don't think that Embarcadero considers dotted unit names as a relict
as they've improved the concept with a "default namespace" in XE2 (I
don't know whether I personally consider that as a improvement though
^^) and also introduced dotted names for all RTL, VCL and FireMo
On 11/4/11 3:17 AM, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> Dotted unit name means dots in the unit name itself. For example
> an.example.pas. I don't know a good example.
Well, if unit names are tied to file names and embedded dots are
becoming more common in file names, then I can understand the "pressure"
to
Am 04.11.2011 11:15, schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
William Oliveira Ferreira schrieb:
Sorry about my low knowlegde, maybe i am the most slow-learning mailer
of this list but i don't understand the advantage of using dots on
unit name. Could someon explain it to me?
It's not an advantage, only
Am 04.11.2011 11:42, schrieb William Oliveira Ferreira:
Wait, now i´ve better understand. FPC Team already added this feature to
compiler, ok, but, add it just to be delphi XE2 compatible?
Dotted unit names were already introduced by at least Delphi 2005 (some
sources even report Delphi 7) - N
Wait, now i´ve better understand. FPC Team already added this feature to
compiler, ok, but, add it just to be delphi XE2 compatible?
William de Oliveira Ferreira
Bacharel em Sistemas de Informação
2011/11/4 Graeme Geldenhuys
> On 4 November 2011 10:08, wrote:
William Oliveira Ferreira schrieb:
Sorry about my low knowlegde, maybe i am the most slow-learning mailer
of this list but i don't understand the advantage of using dots on
unit name. Could someon explain it to me?
It's not an advantage, only a relict from the (never finished) .NET
experiment.
On 4 November 2011 10:08, wrote:
> Weep, then, because as of Delphi XE2, they started using it a lot.
From the CodeRage 6 videos all I could see is that they now
differentiate between VCL (eg: vcl.forms.pas) and FireMonkey (eg:
fm.forms.pas) units. I don't have a copy of XE2, but other than to
On 2011-11-04 10:08, michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 4 November 2011 09:17, Mattias Gaertner
wrote:
This is the explanation for using unitname.identifier, which worked
since many years.
I was just about to say the same thing.
Dotted u
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 4 November 2011 09:17, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
This is the explanation for using unitname.identifier, which worked
since many years.
I was just about to say the same thing.
Dotted unit name means dots in the unit name itself. For example
a
On 4 November 2011 09:17, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> This is the explanation for using unitname.identifier, which worked
> since many years.
I was just about to say the same thing.
> Dotted unit name means dots in the unit name itself. For example
> an.example.pas. I don't know a good example.
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 19:46:01 -0400
Rich Saunders wrote:
> On 11/3/11 7:03 PM, William Oliveira Ferreira wrote:
> > Sorry about my low knowlegde, maybe i am the most slow-learning mailer
> > of this list but i don't understand the advantage of using dots on
> > unit name. Could someon explain it t
Thanks, becames more clear to me!
2011/11/3, Rich Saunders :
> On 11/3/11 7:03 PM, William Oliveira Ferreira wrote:
>> Sorry about my low knowlegde, maybe i am the most slow-learning mailer
>> of this list but i don't understand the advantage of using dots on
>> unit name. Could someon explain it
On 11/3/11 7:03 PM, William Oliveira Ferreira wrote:
> Sorry about my low knowlegde, maybe i am the most slow-learning mailer
> of this list but i don't understand the advantage of using dots on
> unit name. Could someon explain it to me?
Say you use a bunch of units where XXX is defined multiple
Sorry about my low knowlegde, maybe i am the most slow-learning mailer
of this list but i don't understand the advantage of using dots on
unit name. Could someon explain it to me?
2011/11/3, Kjow :
> 2011/11/3 Paul Ishenin :
>> New_Features_Trunk contains new feature of the trunk compiler. If the
2011/11/3 Paul Ishenin :
> New_Features_Trunk contains new feature of the trunk compiler. If the
> feature is present in the released compiler - it should be removed from
> there. If the feature is not yet ready - it should not be there.
> Depends on what you understand by "stable trunk".
>
> This
03.11.2011 16:19, Kjow wrote:
Hi all,
what FPC version support dotted unit name?
From the wiki: http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/FPC_New_Features_Trunk
"Delphi-like namespaces units
Overview: Support has been added for unit names with dots."
So, I believe that if it refers to trunk, it sh
Hi all,
what FPC version support dotted unit name?
>From the wiki: http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/FPC_New_Features_Trunk
"Delphi-like namespaces units
Overview: Support has been added for unit names with dots."
So, I believe that if it refers to trunk, it should be about 2.7.1
I don't under
42 matches
Mail list logo
