Martin Schreiber schrieb:
On Thursday 14 August 2008 19.04:27 Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Martin Schreiber schrieb:
On Thursday 14 August 2008 11.29:40 Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Martin Schreiber schrieb:
There are no pseudo terminals on win32, I must use pipes. The current
2.0.3 RTL does not flush
On Thursday 14 August 2008 19.04:27 Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> Martin Schreiber schrieb:
> > On Thursday 14 August 2008 11.29:40 Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> >> Martin Schreiber schrieb:
> >>> There are no pseudo terminals on win32, I must use pipes. The current
> >>> 2.0.3 RTL does not flush output on
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
In our previous episode, Martin Schreiber said:
Indeed, people complained about the speed when redirecting output to a
file.
So the answer is:
"It is not possible to get flushed writeln and compiler messages on win32
pipes with FPC"?
Maybe, (with a custom textio d
Martin Schreiber schrieb:
On Thursday 14 August 2008 11.29:40 Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Martin Schreiber schrieb:
There are no pseudo terminals on win32, I must use pipes. The current
2.0.3 RTL does not flush output on writeln if the filehandle is a pipe
(2.0.2 does!). So the IDE target console w
In our previous episode, Martin Schreiber said:
> > Indeed, people complained about the speed when redirecting output to a
> > file.
>
> So the answer is:
> "It is not possible to get flushed writeln and compiler messages on win32
> pipes with FPC"?
Maybe, (with a custom textio driver, so that
On Thursday 14 August 2008 11.29:40 Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> Martin Schreiber schrieb:
> > There are no pseudo terminals on win32, I must use pipes. The current
> > 2.0.3 RTL does not flush output on writeln if the filehandle is a pipe
> > (2.0.2 does!). So the IDE target console window is unusabl
Vincent Snijders wrote:
It is parsed in the xmlreader. The DOM simple contains one single
widechar, not these 8 chars. I suspect it is copied as is from the DOM
to the output file.
Correct. The character (numeric) entitity references are expanded upon
parsing and replaced by the correspondin
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Now we know better! :-)
>
> One test to do would be to add cwstrings to the fpdoc project and
> trying again, see what it does.
We are not that lucky, I'm afraid. Now we have 3 question marks
instead of 1. :-)
-
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'll file a bug report in Mantis.
Report as:
http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=11881
Regards,
- Graeme -
___
fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit
h
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:12 PM, "Vinzent Höfler"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I suspect those entities get parsed by the DOM-unit as entities (which is
> > the right thing to do generally) and simply get lost in the transformati
Graeme Geldenhuys schreef:
I think you have a point with the DOM-unit parsing the documentation
content. So we can safely say, the actual content is NOT copied as-is!
…
If the above was interpreted as-is (with the rest of the content), it
would be 8 ascii characters all below 256 character co
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:12 PM, "Vinzent Höfler"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I suspect those entities get parsed by the DOM-unit as entities (which is the
> right thing to do generally) and simply get lost in the transformation back
> to the byte stream (aka. AnsiString) then.
>
>> …
>>
>> sh
Datum: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:06:14 +0200
Von: "Graeme Geldenhuys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That makes no sense because I used the escaped unicode character
> format, just like HTML does. So those characters (documentation
> content) should be copied as-is to the HTML.
I suspect those entities get pars
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Sergei Gorelkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>>
>> No, but that was my first thought as well. That is why I view the
>> actual generated HTML file that fpdoc produced. It has a literal ?
>> character in the .html file. I used Midnight Com
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Sergei Gorelkin wrote:
> Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> >
> > No, but that was my first thought as well. That is why I view the
> > actual generated HTML file that fpdoc produced. It has a literal ?
> > character in the .html file. I used Midnight Commander's editor and
> >
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
No, but that was my first thought as well. That is why I view the
actual generated HTML file that fpdoc produced. It has a literal ?
character in the .html file. I used Midnight Commander's editor and
Gnomes gEdit to view the .html file.
It looks like the problem is
> Datum: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:30:51 +0200
> Von: "Graeme Geldenhuys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >> > it becomes a literal '?' question mark character in the generated
> HTML
> >> > Source output.
> >>
> >> Here is anothe
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > it becomes a literal '?' question mark character in the generated HTML
>> > Source output.
>>
>> Here is another example:
>
> Sounds like a browser font issue, rather than an encoding issue.
No, but that was my fir
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> >
> >> To summarize: Unicode can be used in fpdoc xml files. If the file has
> >> ISO8859-1 encoding label, it should be removed or replaced with UTF-8
> >> label.
> >
> > I'll assume this is all in theory then. :-)
> > See my previous reply. Even
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM, "Vinzent Höfler"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Well, what's the DTD saying about it? ;)
>>
>> Errmm???
>
> The Document Type Description? Well, I suppose, there is none...
I know what DTD means, I meant there is none I know of. :)
>> 2. Actual and escaped U
> Datum: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 14:12:33 +0200
> Von: "Graeme Geldenhuys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:51 PM, "Vinzent Höfler"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> But what is fpdoc's xml files? Pure XML, XHTML or some custom/hybrid
> >> format? The layout of fpdoc's files seem XML, bu
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Sergei Gorelkin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> To summarize: Unicode can be used in fpdoc xml files. If the file has
>> ISO8859-1 encoding label, it should be removed or replaced with
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Sergei Gorelkin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To summarize: Unicode can be used in fpdoc xml files. If the file has
> ISO8859-1 encoding label, it should be removed or replaced with UTF-8 label.
I'll assume this is all in theory then. :-)
See my previous reply. Eve
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - HTML generated output ---
> Overview
>
> Is this character: ? displayed correctly?
> end
>
> Exactly as is! I view the HTML source a
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> You can specify --charset=UTF8 on the command line of fpdoc, that will set
OK, but it should be --charset=UTF-8
Thanks.
> the encoding of the generated HTML page, but it does NO conversion
> whatsoever.
Well this is not
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:51 PM, "Vinzent Höfler"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> But what is fpdoc's xml files? Pure XML, XHTML or some custom/hybrid
> >> format? The layout of fpdoc's files seem XML, but the documentation
> >> conten
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How does this argument fit with XML which also uses UTF-8 as the de
facto standard encoding. And seeing that fpdoc uses XML for the
documentation files, can I use the actual Unicode characters
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:51 PM, "Vinzent Höfler"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But what is fpdoc's xml files? Pure XML, XHTML or some custom/hybrid
>> format? The layout of fpdoc's files seem XML, but the documentation
>> content seems some hybrid HTML - hence the confusion with what is
>> allowe
> Datum: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:44:14 +0200
> Von: "Graeme Geldenhuys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> But what is fpdoc's xml files? Pure XML, XHTML or some custom/hybrid
> format? The layout of fpdoc's files seem XML, but the documentation
> content seems some hybrid HTML - hence the confusion with what is
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How does this argument fit with XML which also uses UTF-8 as the de
>> facto standard encoding. And seeing that fpdoc uses XML for the
>> documentation files, can I use the actual Unicode characters in my
>> fpdoc doc
> Datum: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:14:38 +0200 (CEST)
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > How does this argument fit with XML which also uses UTF-8 as the de
> > facto standard encoding. And seeing that fpdoc uses XML for the
> > documentation files, can I use the actual Unicode characters in my
> > fpdoc d
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> In researching how to type Unicode characters on different platforms,
> I came across an interesting argument regarding Unicode characters and
> HTML. The argument might apply to fpdoc documentation (xml) files as
> well?hence the reason for this
Hi,
In researching how to type Unicode characters on different platforms,
I came across an interesting argument regarding Unicode characters and
HTML. The argument might apply to fpdoc documentation (xml) files as
well—hence the reason for this post.
With W3C embracing UTF-8 as the de facto stan
Martin Schreiber schrieb:
There are no pseudo terminals on win32, I must use pipes. The current 2.0.3
RTL does not flush output on writeln if the filehandle is a pipe (2.0.2
does!). So the IDE target console window is unusable on win32 with FPC 2.0.3
RTL and works OK with FPC 2.0.2 RTL.
"
;-)
On Wednesday 13 August 2008 23.12:25 Daniël Mantione wrote:
> >
> > Can you give a link?
>
> http://lists.freepascal.org/lists/fpc-devel/2006-May/007788.html
>
Hmm, the question remains:
"
Since some time FPC doesn't flush output on pipes after writeln.
On linux I can use a pseudo terminal, what c
On 8/14/08, amir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I want to have the date/time of my computer for GMT. As I searched the
> rtl.pdf, I found out that there are some functions
> in OLDLinux unit which return the current time for GMT (not local
> timezone). I wonder if they can be used on Windows (It sa
36 matches
Mail list logo
