Re: [fpc-pascal] Writeable typed constants - what's the point?
On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 18:31 +0200, Jürgen Hestermann wrote: > > Richard Ward schrieb: > > In my opinion also, the > > semantics should be changed to reflect the actual nature of the > > construct and behavior. > > Agree. I think Richard Ward actually meant the syntax, not the semantics. The semantics of static duration are fixed and need to be so. The current syntax of the "inconstant constant" is nonsensical, really. It smacks of an almighty kludge. -- Regards, Dave [RLU #314465] === david.w.n...@ntlworld.com (David W Noon) === ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Name for our license
* Free Pascal LGPL --> shortened to FPLGPL I don't like acronyms, especially if they are more than 3 letters long. Why not simply name it "Free Pascal Licence"? Jürgen Hestermann. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Writeable typed constants - what's the point?
> Richard Ward schrieb: In my opinion also, the semantics should be changed to reflect the actual nature of the construct and behavior. Agree. Again, imo, it would be better if someone who was migrating from Delphi, found that their FPC program didn't compile could look in the manual and make the global changes rather than have someone new introducing bugs into their programs because they were confused on the concept. I fully agree. It is a much better approach to let a programmer change his own program when porting things than having some kind of compatibility mode which is then used for new programs too so that you never get rid of awkward coding hacks. I also wager it would be at least a wash for the various mailing list moderators fielding questions from Delphi migraters vs. new programmers. At least the Delphi migrators should (hopefully) have an understanding of the concept already. And if they really didn't understand the concept, this would flush out the misconception. - ROW Agree again. Jürgen Hestermann. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Writeable typed constants - what's the point?
On Jun 20, 2009, at 6:00 AM, David Noon wrote: I think it is more expressive to make the semantics clear by declaring an inconstant constant as a variable -- because that's what it is -- This semantic issue is very confusing for beginners including people who are migrating from a non Borland environment. In my opinion also, the semantics should be changed to reflect the actual nature of the construct and behavior. This would have saved me considerable time when I was trying to figure out why it that particular construct was there in the first place. Again, imo, it would be better if someone who was migrating from Delphi, found that their FPC program didn't compile could look in the manual and make the global changes rather than have someone new introducing bugs into their programs because they were confused on the concept. I also wager it would be at least a wash for the various mailing list moderators fielding questions from Delphi migraters vs. new programmers. At least the Delphi migrators should (hopefully) have an understanding of the concept already. And if they really didn't understand the concept, this would flush out the misconception. - ROW ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Name for our license
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said: > I think that would be a bad name, because > a) there is nothing specific to the FPC project about this license > b) many other projects also use this form of licensing (just google > for "lgpl static linking exception" without the quotes) > > Simply "LGPL with static linking exception" seems fine to me as a > description. http://wiki.freepascal.org/licensing ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Name for our license
On 20 Jun 2009, at 16:15, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote: Modified LGPL just isn't good enought, because it's not unique enough. Modified in which way? By who? I would like to have a name for our license, what do you think? I suggest: * Free Pascal LGPL --> shortened to FPLGPL I think that would be a bad name, because a) there is nothing specific to the FPC project about this license b) many other projects also use this form of licensing (just google for "lgpl static linking exception" without the quotes) Simply "LGPL with static linking exception" seems fine to me as a description. Jonas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
[fpc-pascal] Name for our license
Hello, Often I need to tell anyone it's a good option to use the license from the FPC RTL, but this license has no unique name, which leads to the ackward need to use expressions like "the same license as the Runtime Library from Free Pascal" or "The same license as the Lazarus Component Library". Modified LGPL just isn't good enought, because it's not unique enough. Modified in which way? By who? I would like to have a name for our license, what do you think? I suggest: * Free Pascal LGPL --> shortened to FPLGPL Having a name for the license will also make it possible for example, that it is one day included in license templates in various places, for example SourceForge. There is no need to change the FPC and Lazarus code to use the new license name, but new projects could start using it if it's agreed upon as a standard name for the license, and template files can be made for it. thanks, -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
