Re: [fpc-devel] Fwd: While - Otherwise Statement

2015-10-13 Thread Jonas Maebe 

Sven Barth wrote:

The intrafunctional gotos not really. But the interfunctional ones
(modeswitch nonlocalgoto in 2.7.1+) might mess with managed types ;)


The compiler should give an error if you try to "goto" out of or into a 
frame than needs initialisation/finalisation.



Jonas
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Fwd: While - Otherwise Statement

2015-10-13 Thread Michael Van Canneyt 



On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, wkitt...@windstream.net wrote:


On 10/12/2015 03:43 PM, Martin Frb wrote:
Actually the above does not represent what the actual feature request is 
about


The "else" is to be executed, after the while (even if the while looped 
ZERO

times).
But it is to be skipped if the while exited via break (and only then).

For that reason "else" or "otherwise" are badly chosen keywords. Because 
they

imply a different function.


exactly my and others' points... "and" would be better but then one might 
just as easily use a goto to jump around that part if break was used to get 
out of the loop...


anyway, it seems that no matter what the discussion, it won't make it into 
the compiler... that according to another post from a compiler dev ;)


Maybe my remark was not clear.

I'm not against this *functionality*.

I merely pointed out that *the syntax using 'else'* 
is not going to make it because it breaks backwards compatibility.


If another keyword is used: no problem.

I don't understand why anyone would want this marginal functionality and thus 
(again) needlessly complicates the language, but hey, it's a (mostly) free world


Alas, the monstrosity that Object Pascal syntax is becoming is less and less 
appealing by the day, it's simply frightening...


Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] new features and facilities

2015-10-13 Thread Michael Van Canneyt 



On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Marco van de Voort wrote:


In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:


I'm not sure this kind of semantics is possible with a compiler

intrinsic...

But if it is: In that case the IfThen or IIF() or somesuch has my

absolute top preference, followed by ternary. (and the If .. then
expression should be blasted to hell ;) )

Yes a compiler intrinsic could handle that. In the end all three syntaxes
are the same code representation anyway: namely an if-node.
The IfThen() intrinsic would be fine with me as well. Let's call this our
common ground ;)


Agreed !


(ifthen clashes name with the delphi functions of the same name in a much
used unit as math, the name should be different but the intrinsic principle
IMHO is best)


IIF ?

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] new features and facilities

2015-10-13 Thread Sven Barth 
Am 13.10.2015 09:34 schrieb "Michael Van Canneyt" :
>
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
>> In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
>
>
> I'm not sure this kind of semantics is possible with a compiler

 intrinsic...
>
> But if it is: In that case the IfThen or IIF() or somesuch has my

 absolute top preference, followed by ternary. (and the If .. then
 expression should be blasted to hell ;) )

 Yes a compiler intrinsic could handle that. In the end all three
syntaxes
 are the same code representation anyway: namely an if-node.
 The IfThen() intrinsic would be fine with me as well. Let's call this
our
 common ground ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed !
>>
>>
>> (ifthen clashes name with the delphi functions of the same name in a much
>> used unit as math, the name should be different but the intrinsic
principle
>> IMHO is best)
>
>
> IIF ?

As someone else already wrote name clashes shouldn't be a problem as Math
is always used after System and thus Math.IfThen takes precedence.

Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Fwd: While - Otherwise Statement

2015-10-13 Thread Sven Barth 
Am 13.10.2015 08:36 schrieb "Jonas Maebe" :
>
> Sven Barth wrote:
>>
>> The intrafunctional gotos not really. But the interfunctional ones
>> (modeswitch nonlocalgoto in 2.7.1+) might mess with managed types ;)
>
>
> The compiler should give an error if you try to "goto" out of or into a
frame than needs initialisation/finalisation.

Ah, ok, so we're already checking that. Good ^^
Then it's mostly the "bad karma" of goto I'd say ;)

Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Fwd: While - Otherwise Statement

2015-10-13 Thread Mark Morgan Lloyd 

wkitt...@windstream.net wrote:

On 10/13/2015 04:32 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:



On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, wkitt...@windstream.net wrote:


On 10/12/2015 03:43 PM, Martin Frb wrote:
Actually the above does not represent what the actual feature 
request is about


The "else" is to be executed, after the while (even if the while 
looped ZERO

times).
But it is to be skipped if the while exited via break (and only then).

For that reason "else" or "otherwise" are badly chosen keywords. 
Because they

imply a different function.


exactly my and others' points... "and" would be better but then one 
might just
as easily use a goto to jump around that part if break was used to 
get out of

the loop...

anyway, it seems that no matter what the discussion, it won't make it 
into the

compiler... that according to another post from a compiler dev ;)


Maybe my remark was not clear.

I'm not against this *functionality*.

I merely pointed out that *the syntax using 'else'* is not going to 
make it

because it breaks backwards compatibility.


a... my bad... sorry 'bout that... i've been thinking about this, 
too... 'else' and 'otherwise' mean the same thing... what they seem to 
be looking for is 'aswell'...



foo := 0;
while foo < 100 do
  begin
inc(foo);
  end;
aswell
  begin
dec(foo);
  end;


either 'aswell' or 'aswellas'... while foo is less than 100 increment 
foo as well as decrement foo when it is no longer less than 100...


If somebody really has to do this wouldn't "also" be a better choice to 
avoid (getting close to overloading "as"? :-/


--
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

Re: [fpc-devel] Fwd: While - Otherwise Statement

2015-10-13 Thread wkitty42 

On 10/13/2015 04:32 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:



On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, wkitt...@windstream.net wrote:


On 10/12/2015 03:43 PM, Martin Frb wrote:

Actually the above does not represent what the actual feature request is about

The "else" is to be executed, after the while (even if the while looped ZERO
times).
But it is to be skipped if the while exited via break (and only then).

For that reason "else" or "otherwise" are badly chosen keywords. Because they
imply a different function.


exactly my and others' points... "and" would be better but then one might just
as easily use a goto to jump around that part if break was used to get out of
the loop...

anyway, it seems that no matter what the discussion, it won't make it into the
compiler... that according to another post from a compiler dev ;)


Maybe my remark was not clear.

I'm not against this *functionality*.

I merely pointed out that *the syntax using 'else'* is not going to make it
because it breaks backwards compatibility.


a... my bad... sorry 'bout that... i've been thinking about this, too... 
'else' and 'otherwise' mean the same thing... what they seem to be looking for 
is 'aswell'...



foo := 0;
while foo < 100 do
  begin
inc(foo);
  end;
aswell
  begin
dec(foo);
  end;


either 'aswell' or 'aswellas'... while foo is less than 100 increment foo as 
well as decrement foo when it is no longer less than 100...


i don't see a need for it because in this case if one wants foo to only get to 
99, then they should use 99 as their count...



foo := 0;
while foo < 99 do
  begin
inc(foo);
  end;


at the end of the loop, foo will equal 99... but it is also a very simple 
example...



If another keyword is used: no problem.


ok...


I don't understand why anyone would want this marginal functionality and thus
(again) needlessly complicates the language, but hey, it's a (mostly) free
world

Alas, the monstrosity that Object Pascal syntax is becoming is less and less
appealing by the day, it's simply frightening...


it seems that way... but it doesn't mean that we have to use it... we can stay 
with the traditional ways and means within whatever it becomes as long as they 
don't change with these undesirable extensions...


--
 NOTE: No off-list assistance is given without prior approval.
   *Please keep mailing list traffic on the list* unless
   private contact is specifically requested and granted.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Fwd: While - Otherwise Statement

2015-10-13 Thread David W Noon 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 22:34:03 -0300, Flávio Etrusco
(flavio.etru...@gmail.com) wrote about "Re: [fpc-devel] Fwd: While -
Otherwise Statement" (in

Re: [fpc-devel] Fwd: While - Otherwise Statement

2015-10-13 Thread David W Noon 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:32:07 -0400, Wkitty42 (wkitt...@windstream.net)
wrote about "Re: [fpc-devel] Fwd: While - Otherwise Statement" (in
<561c5f17.4070...@windstream.net>):

[snip]
> that looks very much like what some would consider goto
> statements... does the leave return to the top of the previous loop
> or does it drop to the next statement in the previous loop?

It leaves the loop at the END statement that matches the DO statement
as labelled. So it goes to the next statement in the surrounding loop.

>> If the label is omitted then the immediately containing loop is
>> left.
> 
> "immediately containing loop" meaning loop_3 if we're in loop_3?

Correct. It's the same as break.

> yup! and i did catch the THEH->THEN oops... no problems there O:)

Ageing eyes, I'm afraid. When I remove my contact lenses at night I
have very distorted corneas (keratoconus) and cannot easily
distinguish an H from an N. ... :-(
- -- 
Regards,

Dave  [RLU #314465]
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
david.w.n...@googlemail.com (David W Noon)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlYdJV4ACgkQogYgcI4W/5QZKgCaA7lhDyhW/D0E+ATdBhrkzyIM
YrsAmwYelE+svkFxHDZvKLP3AJ/HZ8DN
=WNCc
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Fwd: While - Otherwise Statement

2015-10-13 Thread Ralf Quint 

On 10/13/2015 1:32 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:



I don't understand why anyone would want this marginal functionality 
and thus (again) needlessly complicates the language, but hey, it's a 
(mostly) free world


Alas, the monstrosity that Object Pascal syntax is becoming is less 
and less appealing by the day, it's simply frightening...

+1

Ralf

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Fwd: While - Otherwise Statement

2015-10-13 Thread wkitty42 

On 10/13/2015 09:40 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:

wkitt...@windstream.net wrote:

a... my bad... sorry 'bout that... i've been thinking about this, too...
'else' and 'otherwise' mean the same thing... what they seem to be looking for
is 'aswell'...


foo := 0;
while foo < 100 do
  begin
inc(foo);
  end;
aswell
  begin
dec(foo);
  end;


either 'aswell' or 'aswellas'... while foo is less than 100 increment foo as
well as decrement foo when it is no longer less than 100...


If somebody really has to do this wouldn't "also" be a better choice to avoid
(getting close to overloading "as"? :-/


it might... i don't know anything about "as" because i've never used it... what 
does it do?


--
 NOTE: No off-list assistance is given without prior approval.
   *Please keep mailing list traffic on the list* unless
   private contact is specifically requested and granted.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] adding a new token to compiler cause exception

2015-10-13 Thread Jonas Maebe 

On 13/10/15 19:59, Mohsen wrote:

if (idtoken in [_EXPORT,_EXTERNAL,_WEAKEXTERNAL,_PUBLIC,_CVAR]) then

ptconst.pas(95,45) Error: range check error in set constructor or
duplicate set element

how to solve it ?


Pascal sets can only contain values/enumerations whose ordinal value is 
<= 255. There are more than 256 tokens already. If you add new tokens at 
the start, existing tokens may get an ordinal value > 255, so existing 
set expressions that previously worked may now fail.


The only way to solve that is to remove the items whose ordinal values 
are > 255 from set expressions and to test for them using the regular 
'=' operator.



Jonas
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Fwd: While - Otherwise Statement

2015-10-13 Thread Martin Frb 

wkitt...@windstream.net wrote:
a... my bad... sorry 'bout that... i've been thinking about this, 
too... 'else' and 'otherwise' mean the same thing... what they seem 
to be looking for is 'aswell'...



foo := 0;
while foo < 100 do
  begin
inc(foo);
  end;
aswell
  begin
dec(foo);
  end;


either 'aswell' or 'aswellas'... while foo is less than 100 increment 
foo as well as decrement foo when it is no longer less than 100...




I am not native English, but aswell to me implies "do both" and gives no 
order.
So I would expect this (the aswell block) to be executed for each 
iteration too. like the perl continue block 
http://perldoc.perl.org/functions/continue.html


btw, while I am not for it, the continue block appears much more useful 
than the "on-none-break" block. Though the continue block is not really 
ever needed, usually you can write the loop with the counter decrement 
at the top.


But the existence of such a continue block shows the fundamental issue 
on which a decision is needed. should (if a volunteer for a patch 
exists) every little "save one statement in your code helper" be added? 
Because there are thousands of them, and if you add them all the 
readability of code will go down, because you need to first learn them all.

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] adding a new token to compiler cause exception

2015-10-13 Thread MohsenTi 
I want to add two overloadable operators “>>” and “<<” to use them as “shr”
and “shl” ，or writing into and reading from streams and the other functions
like those mentioned above.
در تاریخ ۱۳ اکتبر ۲۰۱۵ ۲۲:۲۱، "Sven Barth" 
نوشت:

> Am 13.10.2015 19:59 schrieb "Mohsen" :
> >
> > Hi
> > I need add two token to compiler to implement my ideas.
> > adding first token done but second token cause range check exception in
> lines like this
> >
> > if (idtoken in [_EXPORT,_EXTERNAL,_WEAKEXTERNAL,_PUBLIC,_CVAR]) then
> >
> > ptconst.pas(95,45) Error: range check error in set constructor or
> duplicate set element
> >
> > how to solve it ?
>
> First it would be best if you'd show us what exactly you have changed.
> Otherwise we won't be able to help you...
>
> Regards,
> Sven
>
> ___
> 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

[fpc-devel] adding a new token to compiler cause exception

2015-10-13 Thread Mohsen 

Hi
I need add two token to compiler to implement my ideas.
adding first token done but second token cause range check exception in 
lines like this


if (idtoken in [_EXPORT,_EXTERNAL,_WEAKEXTERNAL,_PUBLIC,_CVAR]) then

ptconst.pas(95,45) Error: range check error in set constructor or 
duplicate set element


how to solve it ?


___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Fwd: While - Otherwise Statement

2015-10-13 Thread Sven Barth 
Am 13.10.2015 19:21 schrieb :
>>
>> If somebody really has to do this wouldn't "also" be a better choice to
avoid
>> (getting close to overloading "as"? :-/
>
>
> it might... i don't know anything about "as" because i've never used
it... what does it do?

It's an operator for casting classes and interfaces in a safe way (which
means that an exception is raised if the cast fails).

See here:
http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/ref/refsu47.html#x141-15100012.8.7

Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] adding a new token to compiler cause exception

2015-10-13 Thread Sven Barth 
Am 13.10.2015 19:59 schrieb "Mohsen" :
>
> Hi
> I need add two token to compiler to implement my ideas.
> adding first token done but second token cause range check exception in
lines like this
>
> if (idtoken in [_EXPORT,_EXTERNAL,_WEAKEXTERNAL,_PUBLIC,_CVAR]) then
>
> ptconst.pas(95,45) Error: range check error in set constructor or
duplicate set element
>
> how to solve it ?

First it would be best if you'd show us what exactly you have changed.
Otherwise we won't be able to help you...

Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Fwd: While - Otherwise Statement

2015-10-13 Thread Michael Van Canneyt 



On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, Martin Frb wrote:


wkitt...@windstream.net wrote:
a... my bad... sorry 'bout that... i've been thinking about this, 
too... 'else' and 'otherwise' mean the same thing... what they seem to be 
looking for is 'aswell'...



foo := 0;
while foo < 100 do
  begin
inc(foo);
  end;
aswell
  begin
dec(foo);
  end;


either 'aswell' or 'aswellas'... while foo is less than 100 increment foo 
as well as decrement foo when it is no longer less than 100...




I am not native English, but aswell to me implies "do both" and gives no 
order.
So I would expect this (the aswell block) to be executed for each iteration 
too. like the perl continue block 
http://perldoc.perl.org/functions/continue.html


btw, while I am not for it, the continue block appears much more useful than 
the "on-none-break" block. Though the continue block is not really ever 
needed, usually you can write the loop with the counter decrement at the top.


But the existence of such a continue block shows the fundamental issue on 
which a decision is needed. should (if a volunteer for a patch exists) every 
little "save one statement in your code helper" be added? Because there are 
thousands of them, and if you add them all the readability of code will go 
down, because you need to first learn them all.


I think the answer to your question is a clear and loud "NO".

The argument that we can refrain from using these new features does not hold,
because other people will be using it, and we will have to know all of it to 
be able to understand their code.

None of these features will automagically make Object Pascal a popular language.

However, I seem to be one of the very few thinking this given the enthousiasm with 
which people are discussing this.


Soon I will be forced to emigrate to Javascript country. 
Despite all its drawbacks, it remains at least a simple language. 
a dozen keywords and you're done. No wonder Node.js is so popular.

Compare that with the jungle we're making of it... :(

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] adding a new token to compiler cause exception

2015-10-13 Thread Sven Barth 
Am 13.10.2015 21:51 schrieb "Jonas Maebe" :
>
> On 13/10/15 19:59, Mohsen wrote:
>>
>> if (idtoken in [_EXPORT,_EXTERNAL,_WEAKEXTERNAL,_PUBLIC,_CVAR]) then
>>
>> ptconst.pas(95,45) Error: range check error in set constructor or
>> duplicate set element
>>
>> how to solve it ?
>
>
> Pascal sets can only contain values/enumerations whose ordinal value is
<= 255. There are more than 256 tokens already. If you add new tokens at
the start, existing tokens may get an ordinal value > 255, so existing set
expressions that previously worked may now fail.
>
> The only way to solve that is to remove the items whose ordinal values
are > 255 from set expressions and to test for them using the regular '='
operator.

Maybe I should start to work on the support for array constructors and
operators once generic functions and dynamic packages are working... :P

Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Fwd: While - Otherwise Statement

2015-10-13 Thread Dmitry Boyarintsev 
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Michael Van Canneyt  wrote:

> However, I seem to be one of the very few thinking this given the
> enthousiasm with which people are discussing this.
>

Even Niklaus Wirth regrets about bloating languages:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJIqHIYSDrk

thanks,
Dmitry
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Fwd: While - Otherwise Statement

2015-10-13 Thread Mattias Gaertner 
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 23:25:03 +0200 (CEST)
Michael Van Canneyt  wrote:

>[...]
> The argument that we can refrain from using these new features does not hold,
> because other people will be using it, and we will have to know all of it to 
> be able to understand their code.

And it costs precious time of documentation and tool writers, who are
already lacking behind. And every new feature makes the compiler a bit
slower, costing time of all users.
Each new feature must present a solid case, why it is needed aka
outweighs the downside.


> None of these features will automagically make Object Pascal a popular 
> language.
> 
> However, I seem to be one of the very few thinking this given the enthousiasm 
> with 
> which people are discussing this.

Are you kidding?
Some people are already forking FPC because of such things.

 
> Soon I will be forced to emigrate to Javascript country. 
> Despite all its drawbacks, it remains at least a simple language. 
> a dozen keywords and you're done. No wonder Node.js is so popular.
> Compare that with the jungle we're making of it... :(

Well, then you should vote against this new functionality.


Mattias
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] new features and facilities

2015-10-13 Thread Sven Barth 
Am 12.10.2015 23:29 schrieb "Marco van de Voort" :
>
> In our previous episode, Dmitry Boyarintsev said:
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Marco van de Voort 
wrote:
> >
> > > (ifthen clashes name with the delphi functions of the same name in a
much
> > > used unit as math, the name should be different but the intrinsic
principle
> > > IMHO is best)
> > >
> > But they're inline functions. Thus when inline-d into the code, they're
> > acting as intrinsic.
>
> Are they? It sounds dangerous to me that inlining would suddenly not
> evaluate functions anymore.

It's should not be the case with functions, but with the right optimization
settings the compiler might optimize away statements/expressions that
otherwise would have generated exceptions.

Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel