Back in 2010, in the thread about observer support in fcl, i asked if the
actions would be customizable so i could, e.g., notify/observe if a child was
added or removed in a tree structure. The answer was yes.
Looking at the recent added support, it limit the actions (called operations)
to 5 t
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
> > Seriously, even if you forget compatibility, it is impossible to assess
> > something like that without in-depth design (and preferably a test
> > implementation).
>
> Could always look at Delphi XE3:
> http://twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/9146
marcov wrote on Mon, 27 Aug 2012:
Seriously, even if you forget compatibility, it is impossible to assess
something like that without in-depth design (and preferably a test
implementation).
Could always look at Delphi XE3:
http://twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/9146192.rss :)
Jonas
__
On 27/08/12 09:43, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Seriously, even if you forget compatibility, it is impossible to assess
something like that without in-depth design (and preferably a test
implementation).
Wouldn't something like Java's String and Character classes already be
good in-depth referenc
On 27.08.2012 11:51, Michael Schnell wrote:
On 08/24/2012 03:14 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Would there be any advantage in reimplementing strings as a tree of
classes,
If in future TObject is reference (as it might be in a future Delphi
version, according to an Embarcadero blog) counting
On 27/08/12 08:04, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
http://xkcd.com/927/
:-)
G.
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
On 08/24/2012 03:14 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Would there be any advantage in reimplementing strings as a tree of
classes,
If in future TObject is reference (as it might be in a future Delphi
version, according to an Embarcadero blog) counting (and thus using
.Free is not mandatory any m
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> > I doubt it. You maybe could (and probably would) in a new language, and have
> > one single stringtype.
> >
> > FPC is closer to 20 stringtypes or types with autoconversions.
(First, while 20 sounds bad, you will keep at least ten-twelve anyway,
Rethink the whole 20 string types mess, and implement only one string
type for 3.0 onwards.
==
No, No ! It'll 100% be slow & problematic UTF8.
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listin
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
FPC is closer to 20 stringtypes or types with autoconversions.
Thinking hypothetical here... what if FPC 3.0 did just that... Rethink
the whole 20 string types mess, and implement only one string type for
3.0 onwards. How would developers feel about that? What would t
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:49:05 +0100
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> On 26/08/12 13:40, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > I doubt it. You maybe could (and probably would) in a new language, and have
> > one single stringtype.
> >
> > FPC is closer to 20 stringtypes or types with autoconversions.
>
>
> Thi
11 matches
Mail list logo
