Re: [fpc-pascal] installing FPC 2.6.0 on OS/2
On 1/13/2012 12:24, Tomas Hajny wrote: On Fri, January 13, 2012 16:48, waldo kitty wrote: [time passes] ok, i figured out how to compile with -s and then i ran the ppas.cmd file... it apparently has completed successfully... i do have a bright shiny new exe file... now to figure out what's wrong with the normal way that fp does it as compared to the way fpc is doing it... You may want to check the differences between fp.ini and fpc.cfg. Also, if you have an OS/2 version of the tool 'which' (available e.g. from http://silk.apana.org.au/utils.html or as an internal command within 4OS2 shell if you use that one), you might want to check a possible difference in path returned for 'which as' and 'which ld'. i use 4OS2 and both return the same path... which as 209 rwx 1 bin 212992 Feb 23 2004 10:43:38 h:\fp\2.6.0\bin\os2\as.exe which ld 97 rwx 1 bin 98308 Dec 19 1998 18:51:42 h:\fp\2.6.0\bin\os2\ld.exe i've also looked at fp.ini and fpc.cfg and don't find anything related that might be causing this... the only thing i have done with those files, actually, is to replace 2.6.0 with $FPCVERSION so that i can easily share (ie: copy) the project directory with other machines... i've initially developed this tool on w2k and then copied that directory over to the OS/2 box... i also have a copy on my vista laptop so i can work on it when i'm at work or otherwise out and about with my laptop ;) ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Postscriptcanvas
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, David Copeland wrote: Hi, Is it possible to use the PostScriptCanvas unit in a non-gui program? If you are talking about the pscanvas unit of FPC: Yes, that is what it is for. Michael. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] installing FPC 2.6.0 on OS/2
On 14 Jan 12, at 5:13, waldo kitty wrote: On 1/13/2012 12:24, Tomas Hajny wrote: On Fri, January 13, 2012 16:48, waldo kitty wrote: . . i use 4OS2 and both return the same path... which as 209 rwx 1 bin 212992 Feb 23 2004 10:43:38 h:\fp\2.6.0\bin\os2\as.exe which ld 97 rwx 1 bin 98308 Dec 19 1998 18:51:42 h:\fp\2.6.0\bin\os2\ld.exe off topicMy memory didn't serve well here, this output clearly comes from some external port of the original implementation of the 'which' tool installed on your machine and I just found that 4OS2 doesn't contain such an internal command contrary to my original belief. That doesn't change anything, it serves the intended purpose anyway./off topic Alright, this indeed doesn't suggest anything weird. i've also looked at fp.ini and fpc.cfg and don't find anything related that might be causing this... the only thing i have done with those files, actually, is to replace 2.6.0 with $FPCVERSION so that i can easily share (ie: copy) the project directory with other machines... i've initially developed this tool on w2k and then copied that directory over to the OS/2 box... i also have a copy on my vista laptop so i can work on it when i'm at work or otherwise out and about with my laptop ;) Yes, that certainly makes sense. My point was mainly - could it be that you have -FD option specified in fpc.cfg while it is missing in fp.cfg (sorry, not fp.ini) and in effect for the compilation mode selected in the IDE (NORMAL/DEBUG/RELEASE), or that you have this option in both the files but pointing to different directories? Tomas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Postscriptcanvas
Micheal, Thank you. I was referring to LCL Postscriptcanvas unit which I use in GUI programs. When I tried to use it in a non-GUI program, it could not be found. Are these two really the same thing, or at least similar to use? If not the same, can you point me to any documentation or example code? I did find the source so I will try to puzzle it out from that. Dave. On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, David Copeland wrote: Hi, Is it possible to use the PostScriptCanvas unit in a non-gui program? If you are talking about the pscanvas unit of FPC: Yes, that is what it is for. Michael. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Postscriptcanvas
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012, david.copel...@jsidata.ca wrote: Micheal, Thank you. I was referring to LCL Postscriptcanvas unit which I use in GUI programs. When I tried to use it in a non-GUI program, it could not be found. Are these two really the same thing, or at least similar to use? If not the same, can you point me to any documentation or example code? I did find the source so I will try to puzzle it out from that. They try to achieve the same thing. The API is necessarily similar, since it is based on TFPCanvas. I suppose that meanwhile the Lazarus version is more complete as there are more people to support it, but it has more requirements as well. I will see if it can be separated out of lazarus, so it has no GUI dependencies. Michael. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Postscriptcanvas
On Sat, 14 Jan 2012, david.copel...@jsidata.ca wrote: Micheal, Thank you. I was referring to LCL Postscriptcanvas unit which I use in GUI programs. When I tried to use it in a non-GUI program, it could not be found. Are these two really the same thing, or at least similar to use? If not the same, can you point me to any documentation or example code? I did find the source so I will try to puzzle it out from that. They try to achieve the same thing. The API is necessarily similar, since it is based on TFPCanvas. I suppose that meanwhile the Lazarus version is more complete as there are more people to support it, but it has more requirements as well. I will see if it can be separated out of lazarus, so it has no GUI dependencies. Michael. ___ Michael, Thanks very much, that would would be great. I appreciate it. Dave. ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] installing FPC 2.6.0 on OS/2
On 1/14/2012 08:06, Tomas Hajny wrote: On 14 Jan 12, at 5:13, waldo kitty wrote: On 1/13/2012 12:24, Tomas Hajny wrote: On Fri, January 13, 2012 16:48, waldo kitty wrote: . . i use 4OS2 and both return the same path... which as 209 rwx 1 bin 212992 Feb 23 2004 10:43:38 h:\fp\2.6.0\bin\os2\as.exe which ld 97 rwx 1 bin 98308 Dec 19 1998 18:51:42 h:\fp\2.6.0\bin\os2\ld.exe off topicMy memory didn't serve well here, this output clearly comes from some external port of the original implementation of the 'which' tool installed on your machine and I just found that 4OS2 doesn't contain such an internal command contrary to my original belief. That doesn't change anything, it serves the intended purpose anyway./off topic not a problem... which which 53 rwx 1 bin 54031 Apr 21 2000 12:25:36 X:\o2progs\gnu\tools\which.exe yup, looks like i have (some of?) the gnu tools installed, also... but they are later in the path that this fpc install... fpc is at the head of the path and libpath... Alright, this indeed doesn't suggest anything weird. ok... i've also looked at fp.ini and fpc.cfg and don't find anything related that might be causing this... the only thing i have done with those files, actually, is to replace 2.6.0 with $FPCVERSION so that i can easily share (ie: copy) the project directory with other machines... i've initially developed this tool on w2k and then copied that directory over to the OS/2 box... i also have a copy on my vista laptop so i can work on it when i'm at work or otherwise out and about with my laptop ;) Yes, that certainly makes sense. My point was mainly - could it be that you have -FD option specified in fpc.cfg while it is missing in fp.cfg (sorry, not fp.ini) and in effect for the compilation mode selected in the IDE (NORMAL/DEBUG/RELEASE), or that you have this option in both the files but pointing to different directories? ahhh... yes, i have taken great pains to ensure that all three default stanzas contain identical paths no matter which selector is chosen... i've only got one project that needs an additional path and that's because i've kept a portion of synapse local to it... however, those are only related to finding source files... i do see where i can specify a path for tools in fpc and it is set to the default... with my $FPCVERSION change... none of my fp.cfg files have -FD in them and i don't know that i know where it should appear... but this options hasn't been in the fp.cfg file ever that i know of... have i found another bug? ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] installing FPC 2.6.0 on OS/2
On Sat, January 14, 2012 18:38, waldo kitty wrote: On 1/14/2012 08:06, Tomas Hajny wrote: On 14 Jan 12, at 5:13, waldo kitty wrote: On 1/13/2012 12:24, Tomas Hajny wrote: On Fri, January 13, 2012 16:48, waldo kitty wrote: . . Yes, that certainly makes sense. My point was mainly - could it be that you have -FD option specified in fpc.cfg while it is missing in fp.cfg (sorry, not fp.ini) and in effect for the compilation mode selected in the IDE (NORMAL/DEBUG/RELEASE), or that you have this option in both the files but pointing to different directories? ahhh... yes, i have taken great pains to ensure that all three default stanzas contain identical paths no matter which selector is chosen... i've only got one project that needs an additional path and that's because i've kept a portion of synapse local to it... however, those are only related to finding source files... i do see where i can specify a path for tools in fpc and it is set to the default... with my $FPCVERSION change... none of my fp.cfg files have -FD in them and i don't know that i know where it should appear... but this options hasn't been in the fp.cfg file ever that i know of... have i found another bug? No, that isn't a bug, -FD isn't mandatory. It just allows specifying a concrete installation of as and ld regardless of the PATH setting. That's also why I asked about it - if fp.cfg had a reference to another directory while fpc used just PATH based search, it could be a reason of the different behaviour. Is there any difference between ppas.cmd created by fp.exe and fpc.exe if you add option -s to compilation from both? Any difference between link.res file created in the two cases? Do you see any error messages from the linker when running it from ppas.cmd created by fp.exe for compilation with -s? Tomas Tomas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Advanced Records - Why not available by default?
Daniel Gaspary wrote: Any special reason to Advanced Records be available only in Delphi Mode ? Personally, I'm getting sick of all the new features added to delphi that don't add anything meaningful, and just add complexity to the compiler. why didn't borland just make people use old borland objects with methods instead of new advanced records? Old borland objects are advanced records.. Ticking me off more: why do we even have objects and classes? what is an object? what are classes? I would have preferred if borland would have just called old borland objects Extended records from day one. Now we have this feature overload in the language and it's becoming more and more complex of a language (needlessly). Objects, Classes, records.. aren't they all the same thing? I don't even personally buy the idea that objects even exist.. i think they are just extended records. What is an object? an instance of a class? if so, why did borland call the type definition object if it was supposed to be a class? Ugh. Ugly language - it is becoming - sorry to say! ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Advanced Records - Why not available by default?
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Lars nore...@z505.com wrote: Daniel Gaspary wrote: Any special reason to Advanced Records be available only in Delphi Mode ? Personally, I'm getting sick of all the new features added to delphi that don't add anything meaningful, and just add complexity to the compiler. why didn't borland just make people use old borland objects with methods instead of new advanced records? Old borland objects are advanced records.. +1 Ticking me off more: why do we even have objects and classes? what is an object? what are classes? I would have preferred if borland would have just called old borland objects Extended records from day one. Now we have this feature overload in the language and it's becoming more and more complex of a language (needlessly). +1 again. I agree that becoming the language more and more complex needlessly. Objects, Classes, records.. aren't they all the same thing? As I think you know, record type defines a data group; (old) object is a record with functions; classe type is the improvement of both. I don't even personally buy the idea that objects even exist.. i think they are just extended records. Oh, they exist... but you also right, they are extended records, we can say. What is an object? an instance of a class? if so, why did borland call the type definition object if it was supposed to be a class? Ugh. Ugly language - it is becoming - sorry to say! I think Borland erred in definition of object type. So they improved to class type! =) Marcos Douglas ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Advanced Records - Why not available by default?
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 21:59, Lars nore...@z505.com wrote: Personally, I'm getting sick of all the new features added to delphi that don't add anything meaningful, and just add complexity to the compiler. I agrre with you. I like some features of advanced records. But a lot of things seems a big redundancy. The possibility of class vars specially surprised me ? For What purpose that could be good for ? ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Re: [fpc-pascal] Advanced Records - Why not available by default?
For one thing, class variables, class methods, and class properties are subject to visibility controls and inheritance. So you can, for example, have a private class variable initialized with class constructor (which avoids code in the INITIALIZATION section) and accessed via a read-only class property (which is impossible with unit-level variables). These “advanced” features are there to provide better encapsulation. And if you don’t need object-oriented programming, I don’t think they’re going to harm you or your programs, either. On January 15, 2012, Daniel Gaspary wrote: On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 21:59, Lars nore...@z505.com wrote: Personally, I'm getting sick of all the new features added to delphi that don't add anything meaningful, and just add complexity to the compiler. I agrre with you. I like some features of advanced records. But a lot of things seems a big redundancy. The possibility of class vars specially surprised me ? For What purpose that could be good for ? ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal -- Best Regards, J.-c. Chu smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
