See: http://tutorial.modernpascal.com/?DataTypes
I implemented INTEGER as 32bit, but, if FPC makes it 16bit only, I will go make the change right now. My end-users all know *DO NOT USE INTEGER* it's even in the license agreement. "It is only there for make code compatible w/ Delphi and FPC." I am still spending all my spare time to get MPC's tutorial site up to par with FPC - as I promote MPC as FPC's Script Engine. On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Ozz Nixon <ozzni...@gmail.com> wrote: > I like the concept, I would like to ask that we do not support INTEGER as > a type, and be more specific by limiting to SHORTINT, SMALLINT, LONGINT, > INT64. That way code snippets are not confusing when you implement 16bit > INT logic on a 32bit INT environment. Because I do a lot of documentation > for n00bs in Pascal - the interchangeable INTEGER is probably one of > Borland's biggest mistakes with the grammar! I would love to see FPC make > the statement that the type INTEGER is 16bit only - deal with people > freaking out for a year or two, and move the language forward. Even the > INTEGER example here is assuming 16bit - which would be incorrect on 32bit > platforms in specific $MODE. (may have picked wrong wording, however, I > think everyone see's the point). > > Other than that, if FPC adds this, I will add it to Modern Pascal, so at > least the two products are supporting "BASED". > > On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd < > markmll.fpc-de...@telemetry.co.uk> wrote: > >> On 26/12/17 12:45, Giuliano Colla wrote: >> >> /In short the BASED construct makes the C-style dereferencing operator >>> unnecessary, by moving dereferencing from code to declaration. >>> >>> In fpc this translates into code looking like this, in this trivial >>> example: >>> >>> var >>> I: BYTE; >>> I1: INTEGER; >>> ItemPtr: Pointer; >>> Item: BYTE BASED ItemPtr; >>> IntegerItem: INTEGER BASED ItemPtr; >>> .... >>> ItemPtr := @I; >>> Item := $41; >>> .... >>> ItemPtr := @I1; >>> IntegerItem := -32767; >>> >>> This code will load the BYTE value $41 into the variable I, and the >>> INTEGER value -32767 into the variable I1. >>> >> >> What does gdb (and possibly other debuggers) make of this? Is it really >> appropriate to declare Item as a variable, when it's really more akin to a >> macro? >> >> -- >> Mark Morgan Lloyd >> markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk >> >> [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or >> colleagues] >> _______________________________________________ >> fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org >> http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel >> > >
_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
