Re: [fpc-devel] The (near) future of strings

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Florian Klämpfl wrote: I hope somebody implements this in fpmake :) My "subarch" directory approach needed by several targets is already on hold for years as I do not owe to touch fpmake regarding this. I don't understand why ? Why would you not touch fpmake for this

Re: [fpc-devel] The (near) future of strings

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Marco van de Voort wrote: In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said: However in Michael's scheme with Sysutils using Ansi and System.Sysutils using unicodestring this will fail. Why would this fail ? All we need to do is introduce -NS ? If you have a mix

Re: [fpc-devel] Feature announcement: Record management operators

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Maciej Izak wrote: 07.03.2016 15:50 "Jonas Maebe" : The syntax with the separate "var aFoo: TFoo" parameter, but then seemingly using that parameter as some kind of automatic alias for a fake "self" in the body, is also rather strange (why

Re: [fpc-devel] Feature announcement: Record management operators

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Maciej Izak wrote: 2016-03-07 15:50 GMT+01:00 Jonas Maebe : Congratulations! However, in the future please try to split your commits more. For example, it seems the optimisation regarding the RTTI for initialisation could have been committed

Re: [fpc-devel] The (near) future of strings

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Marco van de Voort wrote: DXE2+ also allow to introduce the scopeprefix so that you don't need to use dotted units (iow if you uses sysutils, then System.sysutils.dcu is found etc). So I use @dcc32 "-NSSystem;System.Win;WinAPI;Vcl;Vcl.Imaging;Data;VclTee" %1 %2 %3 %4 %5

Re: [fpc-devel] Feature announcement: Record management operators

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Jonas Maebe wrote: Maciej Izak wrote on Mon, 07 Mar 2016: I'm pleased to finally announce the additional record operators: Initialize, Finalize. Congratulations! However, in the future please try to split your commits more. For example, it seems the optimisation

Re: [fpc-devel] Feature announcement: Record management operators

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Maciej Izak wrote: Hi, I'm pleased to finally announce the additional record operators: Initialize, Finalize. Download (r33200): http://svn.freepascal.org/svn/fpc/branches/maciej/smart_pointers "Record management operators aka record constructor/destructor" They

Re: [fpc-devel] The (near) future of strings

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Mattias Gaertner wrote: On Thu, 03 Mar 2016 06:35:35 + Alfred wrote: [...] In the (near) future, I am still a very happy user of FPC. And mORMot. And sometimes some version of Delphi > XE2. Lets say its 2017. And I am using FPC 3.2.0. Or FPC 4.0.

Re: [fpc-devel] The (near) future of strings

On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, Alfred wrote: I was assuming that a goal (first quote: UTF16) would be accompanied by (some sort of) a roadmap. Opinions are divided, hence there is no roadmap. The main point is what to do with backwards compatibility. Most people do not want to give this up. There

Re: [fpc-devel] Twice stored record RTTI data

On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, Maciej Izak wrote: 2016-03-02 11:10 GMT+01:00 Sven Barth : One could say that in case of FPC the name "ManagedFldCount" isn't quite correct ;) Maybe is good idea to adjust this? Storing unmanaged fields info as managed fields in RTTI table

Re: [fpc-devel] Twice stored record RTTI data

On Tue, 1 Mar 2016, Maciej Izak wrote: 2016-03-01 20:35 GMT+01:00 Maciej Izak : when "TypeInfo" is used for managed record, then RTTI data for those record is stored twice into executable file (useless). Should I report this as bug? Maybe is some reason for that

Re: [fpc-devel] Using double quotes

On Sat, 27 Feb 2016, Sven Barth wrote: Am 27.02.2016 17:44 schrieb "Marcos Douglas" : On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Sven Barth wrote: Am 26.02.2016 21:21 schrieb "Marcos Douglas" : Is there any chance to implement in

Re: [fpc-devel] InstantFPC in FPC distribution?

On Sat, 27 Feb 2016, Denis Kozlov wrote: Why is InstantFPC not included in FPC distribution? For example: * fpc-3.0.0.i386-win32.exe - no InstantFPC. * lazarus-1.6.0-fpc-3.0.0-win32.exe - contains InstantFPC. An oversight. Please file a bugreport. Michael.

Re: [fpc-devel] TSimpleIPC is broken as a component in FPC 3.0.0

On Sat, 27 Feb 2016, Denis Kozlov wrote: @ Michael Should TSimpleIPC.SetActive also check for csDesigning in ComponentState? I presume we don't want to active IPC when used at design time? You are right, I adapted the code in rev. 33129. Michael.

Re: [fpc-devel] Add {$I %DATETIME%}

On Sat, 27 Feb 2016, Jonas Maebe wrote: On 27/02/16 13:32, Denis Kozlov wrote: On 27/02/2016 12:08, Jonas Maebe wrote: If something is platform-specific, it generally does not belong as a language extension. It's the same as existing %DATE% and %TIME%, plus few mathematical operations, no

Re: [fpc-devel] FPC 3.0 slow strings

On Tue, 23 Feb 2016, Maciej Izak wrote: Hi! I am active user of mORMot and Zeos, I'd like to forward here important message from Google+: https://plus.google.com/+ABouchez/posts/eGyvNBsrM9b Any chance to improve this? : Original message (author: A. Bouchez): FPC 3.0 Strings are SLOW...

Re: [fpc-devel] Add {$I %DATETIME%}

I don't think this is a good idea. 1. The TDateTime format is not a basic format of the language. It is an agreement on how to encode date/time information in a double. You now make the compiler dependent on this "agreement", promoting TDateTime to a compiler-recognized type. 2.

Re: [fpc-devel] pastojs

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016, Mohmed Abdrais wrote: Hi fpc developer. i am interested in the pastojs utility. as you know pastojs  don't support class until now, and java script also .i  propose converting class like typescript language  do please take a look at type script.i added a code to do

Re: [fpc-devel] TRect.setWidth and setHeight are shifted

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: Mantis is down and I want to get rid of this patch so that I can work on other things. No, it is not ? Works fine for me. The implementation of TRect.setWidth and setHeight is shifted. Applied in rev 33030. Thanks ! Michael.

Re: [fpc-devel] Generics.Collections as package for Lazarus or package for FPC RTL

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Juha Manninen wrote: On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Maciej Izak wrote: about compatibility and bugs: https://github.com/dathox/generics.collections/raw/master/GenericsCompatibilityMatrix.pdf Yes, that is about your Generics.Collections

Re: [fpc-devel] Generics.Collections as package for Lazarus or package for FPC RTL

y On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Anthony Walter wrote: Micahel, Do you care to address the issues I raised with the inconsistency of string related functions I raised? Specifically the part about string functions in SysUtils, StrUtils, LCLProcs

Re: [fpc-devel] Generics.Collections as package for Lazarus or package for FPC RTL

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Maciej Izak wrote: 2016-01-27 12:07 GMT+01:00 Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org>: On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Juha Manninen wrote: Yes, that is about your Generics.Collections compatibility. I was more interested why fcl-stl is not Delphi compatible whil

Re: [fpc-devel] Generics.Collections as package for Lazarus or package for FPC RTL

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Anthony Walter wrote: Michael, I see the many benefits of dotted namespace units. Yes, they are the same ones everyone cites. None are very convincing. The only one - and minor at that - is the discovery. Take for example your "TEdit" versus "TWebedit" argument: I

Re: [fpc-devel] Generics.Collections as package for Lazarus or package for FPC RTL

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Anthony Walter wrote: Micahel, Do you care to address the issues I raised with the inconsistency of string related functions I raised? Specifically the part about string functions in SysUtils, StrUtils, LCLProcs, LazUTF8, among other units where string related routines

Re: [fpc-devel] Generics.Collections as package for Lazarus or package for FPC RTL

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Tomas Hajny wrote: On Wed, January 27, 2016 09:46, Anthony Walter wrote: Anthony, Do you care to address the issues I raised with the inconsistency of string related functions I raised? Specifically the part about string functions in SysUtils, StrUtils, LCLProcs,

Re: [fpc-devel] Generics.Collections as package for Lazarus or package for FPC RTL

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Sven Barth wrote: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17951412/what-does-the-default-tarray-sort-comparator-actually-do-and-when-would-you-use Thank you for the link, because now I know what was *really* bugging me about the code all the time (you know that feeling

Re: [fpc-devel] Generics.Collections as package for Lazarus or package for FPC RTL

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Marcos Douglas wrote: On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org> wrote: I don't think namespaces are the holy grail. Assume we introduce namespaces, do things 'Properly' and introduce Core.FileUtils Core.StringUtils (the names ar

Re: [fpc-devel] Generics.Collections as package for Lazarus or package for FPC RTL

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Marco van de Voort wrote: In our previous episode, Marcos Douglas said: On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 7:22 AM, Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org> wrote: I don't think namespaces are the holy grail. Assume we introduce namespaces, do things 'Properly' and int

Re: [fpc-devel] Generics.Collections as package for Lazarus or package for FPC RTL

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, silvioprog wrote: On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org wrote: [...] Assume we introduce namespaces, do things 'Properly' and introduce Core.FileUtils Core.StringUtils (the names are just examples, to make a point) Now le

Re: [fpc-devel] Generics.Collections as package for Lazarus or package for FPC RTL

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Juha Manninen wrote: Hey guys ... Now this Generics.Collections is completely hijacked by a namespace discussion. Does it mean the original issue is again buried and forgotten for another year or two? No. Sven is on it. Michael.

Re: [fpc-devel] Generics.Collections as package for Lazarus or package for FPC RTL

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Maciej Izak wrote: 2016-01-26 22:43 GMT+01:00 silvioprog : The Generics.Collections should be added to RTL or as a FPC package. Is there some problem in your implementation that Laz team decided to add it as Lazarus package? If so, is it fixable?

Re: [fpc-devel] Generics.Collections as package for Lazarus or package for FPC RTL

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Anthony Walter wrote: I'd also like to add that there might be more names under a namespace than just two (e.g "Core.Text"). For example: unit Core.Collections; unit Core.Collections.Specialized; unit Core.Text; unit Core.Text.Xml; unit Core.Text.Regex; unit

Re: [fpc-devel] Generics.Collections as package for Lazarus or package for FPC RTL

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Anthony Walter wrote: I guess this is good time to ask, how would the community feel about setting a new standard for Free Pascal units going forward? I am thinking that since FPC 3.0 is now official we don't really have a good excuse to start using many of the great new

Re: [fpc-devel] Generics.Collections as package for Lazarus or package for FPC RTL

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Sven Barth wrote: Am 27.01.2016 07:38 schrieb "Michael Van Canneyt" <mich...@freepascal.org>: On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Maciej Izak wrote: 2016-01-26 22:43 GMT+01:00 silvioprog <silviop...@gmail.com>: The Generics.Collections should be added to R

Re: [fpc-devel] Inconsistent use of Timeout in SimpleIPC

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016, Denis Kozlov wrote: On 16/01/2016 21:43, Denis Kozlov wrote: In regards to merging "wince" and "win" implementations of SimpleIPC. The only real difference is the use of Wide vs Ansi types and functions of WinAPI. Currently, "win32" and "win64" platforms use A

[fpc-devel] Bootstrap compiler for trunk

Hi, For those that build FPC on a regular basis: A reminder that the only supported way to compile everything ("make all") is the latest release compiler. This is version 3.0.0. Up till now, 2.6.4 could also be used as a starting compiler, but the check has been made more stringent, and 2.6.4

Re: [fpc-devel] Inconsistent use of Timeout in SimpleIPC

On Sat, 16 Jan 2016, Denis Kozlov wrote: In regards to merging "wince" and "win" implementations of SimpleIPC. The only real difference is the use of Wide vs Ansi types and functions of WinAPI. Currently, "win32" and "win64" platforms use A versions, while "wince" uses W versions. Since

Re: [fpc-devel] Inconsistent use of Timeout in SimpleIPC

On Tue, 5 Jan 2016, Denis Kozlov wrote: On 5 January 2016 at 12:39, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I was in fact waiting for this part, rather than applying the patch as it is. But if you prefer we can do it in steps ? I prefer to do this in steps, easier to control changes. Bug report

Re: [fpc-devel] Fixing line info units (stabs, dwarf)

On Mon, 4 Jan 2016, Denis Kozlov wrote: Hello, I want to fix couple of issues with line info units, STABS (lineinfo.pp) and DWARF (lnfodwrf.pp): 1) Back trace is permanently disabled once a module without line info is encountered. This has already been fixed in STABS (r31026, r31025),

Re: [fpc-devel] Revision 32823 - * Applied patch from José Mejuto to fix bug ID 27486

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016, Sandro Cumerlato wrote: Hello Michael, fix is OK, thank you. I notice only a missing "white space" if compared to previous output. Please review attached patch. Applied the patch, thank you! rev. 32832. Michael. ___

Re: [fpc-devel] Revision 32823 - * Applied patch from José Mejuto to fix bug ID 27486

I attempted a fix in rev. 32818. Please test. Michael. On Fri, 1 Jan 2016, Sandro Cumerlato wrote: Hello, after revision 32823 I've tried to re-import (using Lazarus "Import Type Library..." Tool) "C:\Windows\SysWOW64\mshtml.tlb" and "C:\Windows\SysWOW64\shdocvw.dll", but I've got a lot of

Re: [fpc-devel] Inconsistent use of Timeout in SimpleIPC

On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 07.12.2015 20:00, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Denis Kozlov wrote: On 6 December 2015 at 08:29, Ondrej Pokorny <laza...@kluug.net> wrote: If you don't persist in using SimpleIPC, there is also AdvancedIPC that uses th

Re: [fpc-devel] Inconsistent use of Timeout in SimpleIPC

On Mon, 7 Dec 2015, Denis Kozlov wrote: On 6 December 2015 at 08:29, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: If you don't persist in using SimpleIPC, there is also AdvancedIPC that uses the same approach (temporary files) across all targets and so it behaves consistently. I think

Re: [fpc-devel] Inconsistent use of Timeout in SimpleIPC

On Sun, 6 Dec 2015, Denis Kozlov wrote: I got the Plan B working (SetTimer+GetMessage) for SimpleIPC. However, it is not possible at all to get TSimpleIPCServer.PeekMessage to NOT read the message, i.e. to respect DoReadMessage=False parameter. The only way to make

Re: [fpc-devel] Inconsistent use of Timeout in SimpleIPC

On Fri, 4 Dec 2015, Denis Kozlov wrote: There is another problem with SimpleIPC on Windows. This same problem was experienced in @Juha's post "SimpleIPC and TWinMsgServerComm.PeekMessage": http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-devel/2013-October/032871.html TWinMsgServerComm.PeekMessage

Re: [fpc-devel] Inconsistent use of Timeout in SimpleIPC

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Denis Kozlov wrote: Hello, Current use of Timeout parameter in TSimpleIPCServer.PeekMessage: * >0 -- number of milliseconds to wait. * 0 -- not documented and inconsistent! * Windows -- wait infinitely (forced via MsgWaitForMultipleObjects) * Unix -- return immediately

Re: [fpc-devel] multi version ppudump

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Mattias Gaertner wrote: Hi, Short: The default install (e.g. make install and most installers) replaces the ppudump utility, reducing its usefulness. For example when Lazarus should support code navigation without sources it requires a working ppudump. Hm. ppudump

Re: [fpc-devel] multi version ppudump

On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Mattias Gaertner wrote: On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 16:49:30 +0100 (CET) Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org> wrote: [...] Hm. ppudump should be backwards compatible ? Or at least, that was the original design ? AFAIK it never supported older versions. For e

Re: [fpc-devel] RTTI

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, Sven Barth wrote: Am 25.11.2015 14:58 schrieb "Michael Van Canneyt" <mich...@freepascal.org>: On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, Anthony Walter wrote: Can someone refer me to a document regarding the whats planned for FPC RTTI improvements? Is it aiming to sup

Re: [fpc-devel] RTTI

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, Sven Barth wrote: Virtual method interceptors are not implemented, but they are planned just like every other Delphi compatible part of the RTTI. They require a bit of platform dependent support though as they'll need to deal with calling conventions (even if it might

Re: [fpc-devel] RTTI

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, Jonas Maebe wrote: Michael Van Canneyt wrote on Wed, 25 Nov 2015: On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, Maciej Izak wrote: 2015-11-22 12:45 GMT+01:00 Maciej Izak <hnb.c...@gmail.com>: 2015-11-21 12:06 GMT+01:00 Arnaud Bouchez <webcontac...@synopse.info>: What

Re: [fpc-devel] RTTI

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, Maciej Izak wrote: 2015-11-22 12:45 GMT+01:00 Maciej Izak : 2015-11-21 12:06 GMT+01:00 Arnaud Bouchez : What do you think of merging the InterfaceRTTI branch with the FPC trunk? Indeed. Very important... Ping core

Re: [fpc-devel] RTTI

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015, Anthony Walter wrote: Can someone refer me to a document regarding the whats planned for FPC RTTI improvements? Is it aiming to support the current Delphi RTTI improvements (attributes, virtual method intercepts, location and tvalue) or something else? There is no

Re: [fpc-devel] Timezones

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Levente Polyak wrote: Hey all, Hey Michael, I hope not to generate noise, but just as a confirmation and summary I think my reply may hopefully be useful: The offered code looks correct as someone can set TZ to any value that exists in /usr/share/zoneinfo/ (in our

Re: [fpc-devel] Timezones

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015, Zachary Vance wrote: I'm reporting a bug the Debian reproducibility team came across (in 2.6.4-1), trying to make Pascal builds reproducible. The end goal is to see UTC timestamped output of ppudump. My understanding of the current behavior is that the timezone file is

Re: [fpc-devel] Access violation in fpmake

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015, Karoly Balogh (Charlie/SGR) wrote: Hi, On Sun, 15 Nov 2015, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Strange, I created a test before committing, and it ran fine. Well. I reinstated line 1132. But according to logic, that line should not be necessary. Maybe I am not properly seeing

Re: [fpc-devel] Access violation in fpmake

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015, Jonas Maebe wrote: On 15/11/15 17:31, MohsenTi wrote: Hi I checkout fpc trunk and try to build it but fpmake raise access violation exception how to solve it ? ./fpmake compile --localunitdir=.. --os=linux --cpu=x86_64 -o -Ur -o -Xs -o -O2 -o -n -o -Cg -o -dx86_64 -o

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Juha, if you want to implement the single IDE instance, then I would like to ask you to implement this in custapp.pp. This is useful functionality for all kinds of applications, and is since very long

Re: [fpc-devel] Enumerator operator

On Tue, 3 Nov 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 03.11.2015 15:42, Sven Barth wrote: Am 03.11.2015 13:49 schrieb "Ondrej Pokorny" >: > > What does the "function search_enumerator_operator" in compiler/symtable.pas do? > > Does FPC support

Re: [fpc-devel] Sets > 256

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015, Marco van de Voort wrote: In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said: same format. Yes, this would be a problem. But wouldn't this be an acceptable price for the improvement? No, it is not that simple. Lazarus would stop working completely. Sets have a size

Re: [fpc-devel] Sets > 256

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: 2015-10-15 14:58 GMT+02:00 DaWorm : On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:36 AM, Michael Schnell wrote: (Not hitchhiking the other thread...) On 13/10/15 19:59, Mohsen wrote: Pascal sets can only contain

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

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

Re: [fpc-devel] new features and facilities

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

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

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

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

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015, Max Nazhalov wrote: On 12.10.2015 17:17 schrieb "Dmitry Boyarintsev" wrote: About while-then. While the syntax is unlikely to break anything, it's inconsistent with if-statement. where, if-then is executed when condition is true. For while-then is executed then

Re: [fpc-devel] Iterator for array properties

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: Oh, it would be so nice if default enumerator wasn't defined with the "GetEnumerator" function but with the default property: TTest = class // ... function GetObjectEnumerator: TTestObjectEnumerator; property Objects[Index: Integer]:

Re: [fpc-devel] Iterator for array properties

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: When we are already discussing new language features, what about supporting iterators for array properties: TTest = class // ... property Objects[Index: Integer]: TObject read GetObject *iterator GetObjectIterator*; property

Re: [fpc-devel] new features and facilities

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, Sven Barth wrote: Am 10.10.2015 10:51 schrieb "Mark Morgan Lloyd" < markmll.fpc-de...@telemetry.co.uk>: Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Sven Barth wrote: I'm not sure this kind of semantics is possible with a comp

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Smart Pointers Idea + ARC implementation

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, Sven Barth wrote: Am 10.10.2015 11:12 schrieb "Michael Van Canneyt" <mich...@freepascal.org>: On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, Maciej Izak wrote: I am working on smart pointers for FPC (something more than pure ARC for classes). This solution is full compatib

Re: [fpc-devel] Iterator for array properties

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 10.10.2015 12:30, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: After a sed s/iterator/enumerator/g I'm all for it. + Yes, the "in Self" is supported. But this is not the problem here. The example still doesn't compile. A class can have more array

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Smart Pointers Idea + ARC implementation

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015, Sven Barth wrote: Am 10.10.2015 12:15 schrieb "Michael Van Canneyt" <mich...@freepascal.org>: Just allow those three operator overloads for normal records and have them be present in the Init RTTI of the record so that fpc_initialize(), fpc_finalize

Re: [fpc-devel] new features and facilities

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Sven Barth wrote: Am 08.10.2015 23:48 schrieb "Michael Van Canneyt" <mich...@freepascal.org>: Actually, yes I think C's or Javascript's ternary is better suited. Let me explain. If I see If expr1 then expr2 else expr3 it says 'statement' to me. But

Re: [fpc-devel] new features and facilities

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Sven Barth wrote: 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 ;) )

Re: [fpc-devel] new features and facilities

On Fri, 9 Oct 2015, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote: The only Pascal way is left := IfThen(expr1, expr2, expr3) Similar to addr(), sizeof(), length(), write() and recently added Default() in intrinsic. I guess functions declared in Math unit are not covering all the needs (since type of expr2,

Re: [fpc-devel] new features and facilities

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Mohsen wrote: Hi! I wanna add new features and facilities to pascal like while - else, for - else and inline if statement like python. examples ex1: I:=5; while(I>0) do begin Write(I); I:=I-1; end else Write(' While Else '); This cannot be implemented

Re: [fpc-devel] new features and facilities

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Sven Barth wrote: Am 08.10.2015 19:10 schrieb "Ralf Quint" : On 10/8/2015 9:54 AM, Sven Barth wrote: I had the idea to implement inline-if as well. I think the syntax I selected is derived from Oxygene, but it looks very Pascal and shouldn't

Re: [fpc-devel] new features and facilities

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Sven Barth wrote: Am 08.10.2015 19:10 schrieb "Ralf Quint" <freedos...@gmail.com>: On 10/8/2015 9:54 AM, Sven Barth wrote: I had the idea to implement inline-if as well. I th

Re: [fpc-devel] advancedipc fixes

On Mon, 5 Oct 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: Hello! I talked to Mattias about the advancedipc implementation and he noticed that the thread ID doesn't have to be necessarily a system-wide unique constant (which I didn't know). Applied the FCL patch, thank you very much. Michael.

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I added it to fpc/packages/fcl-base. It compiles OK, there are no dangerous dependencies except sysutils and classes. Michael, you added the wrong (old) unit from the bug report, not the latest

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Juha Manninen wrote: On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org> wrote: I am not proposing to make a new class. I want a property "SingeInstance" in CustApp which activates this automatically. I had the ver

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 15:35, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: 1. Using a LCL component means that you must instantiate a form/datamodule first. By that time, a database connection may already have been made (just to name something), which is exactly what

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 13:50, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: You may not think this is important, but for beginners, this can be a tremendous aid. The easier we make it, the better. Lazarus is a RAD environment, after all. Michael. OK, I see your point

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 12:52, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I added it to fpc/packages/fcl-base. It compiles OK, there are no dangerous dependencies except sysutils and classes. Thanks! Juha, if you want to implement the single IDE instance, then I would

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Tomas Hajny wrote: On Tue, September 29, 2015 12:30, Juha Manninen wrote: On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Ondrej Pokorny <laza...@kluug.net> wrote: Michael Van Canneyt & Tomas Hajny & everybody who wants to test: I prepared a fully compatible Advance

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: 2015-09-29 11:50 GMT-03:00 Luiz Americo Pereira Camara < luizameri...@gmail.com>: It can be used without the component. The component is just a convenience. See the examples

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: 2. Then it is only available in visually designed applications. Services, website servers and custom console apps are non-visual. I am specificially thinking FastCGI processes. See above I didn't say it could not be done with

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: On the other side, i still think that should be kept out of TCustomApplication. Well, I have already explained why I want it exactly there :) While the simple requirement of checking another instance is easy to implement into

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 29.09.2015 16:09, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: Both are OK. Use of one does not exclude use of the other. I was going to add it in CustApp anyway as soon as I had looked at your implementation. I started working on the CustApp variant. It's

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: Unit uniqueinstanceraw Please look carefully My sincere apologies, I was too fast and indeed opened the wrong unit. uniqueinstance, and uniqueinstancebase, not uniqueinstanceraw :( So, it could be used as well, if we can sort

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: I've developed a "single/multiple instances" feature for the Lazarus IDE. For this feature I need an IPC. First I tried to use simpleipc but I have struggled on bugs and missing functionality. Particularly what I found: 1.) BUG: You can register

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: On 15.09.2015 08:58, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Mon, 14 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: I've developed a "single/multiple instances" feature for the Lazarus IDE. For this feature I need an IPC. First I tried to use simpleipc

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Michael Schnell wrote: On 09/14/2015 03:56 PM, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: 3.) MISSING: Multiple clients (from different processes) talk to one server. 4.) MISSING: Client is able to receive a response on a request. 5.) MISSING: (Optionally, not default) client sends a

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Tomas Hajny wrote: On Tue, September 15, 2015 10:04, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Ondrej Pokorny wrote: . . Are there some high level crossplatform semaphore functions in the FCL? The cthreads/cIntSemaphoreOpen etc. seem to be available on unix only

Re: [fpc-devel] simpleipc issues

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Michael Schnell wrote: On 09/15/2015 01:09 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: IPC = Inter PROCESS Communication. I know that you know this, but Ondrej is talking about cthreads in one of his message, so I tried to politely set a trigger. With my paranoid mind I

Re: [fpc-devel] RTTI

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, Steve Hildebrandt wrote: Am 10.09.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Alfred: 1: I need to know before compiling the source if interface RTTI is available. I would like to use a switch in the source: {$ifdef HASNEWINTERFACERTTI} {$endif} Will see what I can do in that

Re: [fpc-devel] re : FPC app crash with "has text relocations" / android 6.0

Hello, Can you please send your mails as plain text ? The below is totally unreadable in my text-based mail client :( Michael. On Thu, 10 Sep 2015, 크레딕스 최원식 wrote: MoreTesting -TestEnv. FPC3.1.1(svn31577) Case1.JavaLoadingSharedLib(JNI) untiltargetSdkVersion=22->OK,

Re: [fpc-devel] FPC 3.0.0-rc1 release

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015, Joost van der Sluis wrote: -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van:Luiz Americo Pereira Camara Verzonden: zo 30-08-2015 19:56 Onderwerp: Re: [fpc-devel] FPC 3.0.0-rc1 release Aan: FPC developers' list ;

Re: [fpc-devel] FPC 3.0.0-rc1 release

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015, Jonas Maebe wrote: On 30/08/15 09:35, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: Any specific reason why packages/googleapi is absent from 3.0? None specific. It was simply committed to SVN after the branch was made. In theory

Re: [fpc-devel] FPC 3.0.0-rc1 release

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote: 2015-08-25 12:50 GMT-03:00 Joost van der Sluis jo...@cnoc.nl: Hello We have placed the first release candidate of the Free Pascal Compiler version 3.0.0 on our ftp servers. You can help improve the upcoming 3.0.0 release by

Re: [fpc-devel] FPC 3.0.0-rc1 release

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Maciej Izak wrote: 2015-08-25 17:50 GMT+02:00 Joost van der Sluis jo...@cnoc.nl: A preview of the 3.0.0 docs is available at http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/3.0.0/ Small bug in documentation for

<    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >