Am 25.07.2015 um 18:36 schrieb Den:
> Yes, and why does an email/submission not in itself count as a vote? This
> isn't a 'threat' to
> the Free Pascal eco system, I'm trying to help! I hope the 'usuals' aren't
> thinking that I'm trying
> to stand up, go against, or similar? A standard can o
Yes, and why does an email/submission not in itself count as a
vote? This isn't a 'threat' to the Free Pascal eco system, I'm trying to
help! I hope the 'usuals' aren't thinking that I'm trying to stand up,
go against, or similar? A standard can only help Free Pascal. It is up
to us to have
In our previous episode, Den said:
> Actually, I recently proposed several changes to CSS, and I'm not a part
> of their working group. I can even track the status of it.
You don't need to become part of FPC core to post bugs or requests either.
___
fp
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Den wrote:
Actually, I recently proposed several changes to CSS, and I'm not a part of
their working group. I can even track the status of it.
Sure. Everyone can submit, why not ?
Marco said "vote" :)
Michael.
___
fpc-devel m
Actually, I recently proposed several changes to CSS, and I'm not a part
of their working group. I can even track the status of it.
- Dennis Fehr
On 2015-07-24 06:02 AM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Den said:
Looks like I sparked quite a bit of interest! Perhaps w
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Den said:
Looks like I sparked quite a bit of interest! Perhaps we could work
on a Standard instead of just on the Compiler itself? This gives people
more of a look on what 'could' happen, instead of a Wiki where eve
In our previous episode, Den said:
> Looks like I sparked quite a bit of interest! Perhaps we could work
> on a Standard instead of just on the Compiler itself? This gives people
> more of a look on what 'could' happen, instead of a Wiki where everyone
> can just edit. A system where votin
On 07/24/2015 12:13 PM, Den wrote:
Perhaps we could work on a Standard instead of just on the Compiler
itself?
the normal RFC process ...
-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mail
2015-07-24 12:13 GMT+02:00 Den :
> Looks like I sparked quite a bit of interest! Perhaps we could work
> on a Standard instead of just on the Compiler itself? This gives people
> more of a look on what 'could' happen, instead of a Wiki where everyone can
> just edit. A system where voting is
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Den wrote:
Looks like I sparked quite a bit of interest! Perhaps we could work on a
Standard instead of just on the Compiler itself? This gives people more of a
look on what 'could' happen, instead of a Wiki where everyone can just edit.
A system where voting is neces
On 07/24/2015 12:13 PM, Den wrote:
*Plan first, Then Code*: I believe was said? ;)
Tee or beer / cupboard or fridge :-) :-) :-)
-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fp
Looks like I sparked quite a bit of interest! Perhaps we could work
on a Standard instead of just on the Compiler itself? This gives people
more of a look on what 'could' happen, instead of a Wiki where everyone
can just edit. A system where voting is necessary, just like Standards
from W3
On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Maciej Izak wrote:
2015-07-23 11:30 GMT+02:00 Sven Barth :
Sidenote/warning should you decide to work on the compiler now that you
have a branch directory: adhere to the coding style used in the compiler
even if you don't like it (I don't either ;) ), because that will
d
2015-07-23 11:30 GMT+02:00 Sven Barth :
> Sidenote/warning should you decide to work on the compiler now that you
> have a branch directory: adhere to the coding style used in the compiler
> even if you don't like it (I don't either ;) ), because that will
> definitely be a reason to refuse your c
2015-07-23 11:22 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt :
>
>> The most convenient technological argument is compatibility with Oxygene.
>>
>
> Well, that's a political argument, I think: we can choose to be not
> compatible with Oxygene :)
> (whether or not this would constitute suicide or not, is up for
On 7/23/2015 2:45 AM, Michael Schnell wrote:
On 07/22/2015 11:21 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
Declare before use has at least one technical advantage: it allows to
make much faster compliers. Declare before use allows to compile in
one pass, while compilers for languages like C need at leas
On 7/23/2015 1:35 AM, Maciej Izak wrote:
If you want the features of pure pascal, you should use $MODE OBJFPC
or TP or FPC, full stop. You can't stop me and others from introducing
Oxygene flavored mode.Or if inside FPC team is will to block changes
related to Oxygene flavored syntax, let me kn
On 7/23/2015 12:21 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Oxygene is no longer pascal. It's just C# with pascal keywords. a
pityful copy.
If you want the features of C#, you should use C#, full stop.
Exactly! I was first wondering if this would be a "proper" Pascal
implementation to be used on top of
Am 23.07.2015 15:10 schrieb "Michael Van Canneyt" :
>
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Sven Barth wrote:
>
>> Am 23.07.2015 10:56 schrieb "Michael Van Canneyt" :
>>>
>>> I don't believe generics are the nec-plus-ultra of pascal (or any
>>
>> language). I documented them nonetheless (Sven: Ping ?)
>>
>>
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
> > Typing was never the limiting factor in programming,
>
> Surely you're joking.
No. Note that I mean notations that are mostly shorthand, not removal
of primal language constructs.
> Do you really claim that there has ever been any
> excuse fo
Marco van de Voort wrote:
Typing was never the limiting factor in programming,
Surely you're joking. Do you really claim that there has ever been any
excuse for this sort of terseness, except for minimising keyboard work?
A0: R := INSYMBOL;
A1: IF F[S[I]] > G[R] THEN GO TO A2;
IF R = MARK
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 23.07.2015 10:56 schrieb "Michael Van Canneyt" :
I don't believe generics are the nec-plus-ultra of pascal (or any
language). I documented them nonetheless (Sven: Ping ?)
What? Who? Me?! Can't be!
(My free time management is really screwed up since
Am 23.07.2015 10:56 schrieb "Michael Van Canneyt" :
> I don't believe generics are the nec-plus-ultra of pascal (or any
language). I documented them nonetheless (Sven: Ping ?)
What? Who? Me?! Can't be!
(My free time management is really screwed up since I've joined Tumblr -.-
*sigh*)
Regards,
Sv
In our previous episode, Maciej Izak said:
> > technological arguments for your changes.
> >
>
> The most convenient technological argument is compatibility with Oxygene.
If oxygene is what you want, I recommend you start at the basis, and not
superficial details.
Maybe there is some overlap wit
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> > compatibility, unless it is from the people who are actually adding syntax.
> >
> > Overall? Things like fpspreadsheet get more responsed than any language
> > feature combined.
>
> Which fully supports my point that we need more libraries, an
2015-07-23 11:45 GMT+02:00 Michael Schnell :
> On 07/22/2015 11:21 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
>
>>
>> Declare before use has at least one technical advantage: it allows to
>> make much faster compliers. Declare before use allows to compile in one
>> pass, while compilers for languages like C n
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
? Not at all.
I simply don't understand why people want to introduce concepts of other
languages.
Just use the other language, spare yourself the agony.
Just look at the forum. What is talked
On 07/22/2015 11:21 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
Declare before use has at least one technical advantage: it allows to
make much faster compliers. Declare before use allows to compile in
one pass, while compilers for languages like C need at least 2 passes.
???
ANSI C is a "Declare befor
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
> ? Not at all.
>
> I simply don't understand why people want to introduce concepts of other
> languages.
> Just use the other language, spare yourself the agony.
Just look at the forum. What is talked there? Languagewise only more Delphi
compat
Am 23.07.2015 10:35 schrieb "Maciej Izak" :
>
> 2015-07-23 10:12 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt :
>>
>> I simply don't understand why people want to introduce concepts of other
languages.
>> Just use the other language, spare yourself the agony.
>>
>> What confuses me even more: C has been around si
Am 23.07.2015 09:21 schrieb "Maciej Izak" :
>> > Some people love Oxygene, and you can't tell that the Oxygene is not
the Pascal. Any new construction will be "non pascalish" at first glance.
>>
>> No, that depends heavily on the specific construction. Mostly whether it
was obviously just "ripped"
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Maciej Izak wrote:
2015-07-23 10:56 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt :
But I do happen to think many of your arguments are pure bullshit and
hype, and of no value whatsoever.
I just point that out. I would much prefer that you give REAL
technological arguments for your chan
2015-07-23 10:56 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt :
> But I do happen to think many of your arguments are pure bullshit and
> hype, and of no value whatsoever.
> I just point that out. I would much prefer that you give REAL
> technological arguments for your changes.
>
The most convenient technologi
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Edmund Grimley Evans wrote:
Just a couple of reactions:
Declare before use has at least one technical advantage: it allows to
make much faster compliers. Declare before use allows to compile in
one pass, while compilers for languages like C need at least 2 passes.
Not
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Maciej Izak wrote:
If you want the features of pure pascal, you should use $MODE OBJFPC or TP
or FPC, full stop. You can't stop me and others from introducing Oxygene
flavored mode.Or if inside FPC team is will to block changes related to
Oxygene flavored syntax, let me kn
Just a couple of reactions:
> Declare before use has at least one technical advantage: it allows to
> make much faster compliers. Declare before use allows to compile in
> one pass, while compilers for languages like C need at least 2 passes.
Not really. TCC does a single pass with no intermediat
On 07/23/2015 10:34 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Support for a parallel loop is more than syntax candy, it is a
fundamental language change
and hence falls under 'compelling arguments'.
I suppose that happily such syntax supposedly will be a pure extension
and not interfere with the trad
2015-07-23 10:12 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt :
> I simply don't understand why people want to introduce concepts of other
> languages.
> Just use the other language, spare yourself the agony.
>
> What confuses me even more: C has been around since as long as pascal. It
> does not seem plagued by
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Michael Schnell wrote:
On 07/23/2015 09:21 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
If you want the features of C#, you should use C#, full stop.
True for syntax variant features.
But *some* syntax candy for common multi thread usage cases (e.g. a "parallel
loop") nowadays i
On 07/23/2015 09:21 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
If you want the features of C#, you should use C#, full stop.
True for syntax variant features.
But *some* syntax candy for common multi thread usage cases (e.g. a
"parallel loop") nowadays is a necessity.
-Michael
__
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Maciej Izak wrote:
2015-07-23 9:21 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt :
Oxygene is no longer pascal. It's just C# with pascal keywords. a pityful
copy.
If you want the features of C#, you should use C#, full stop.
C# is in some way "new Pascal" so there is nothing wrong wi
2015-07-23 9:21 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt :
> Oxygene is no longer pascal. It's just C# with pascal keywords. a pityful
> copy.
> If you want the features of C#, you should use C#, full stop.
>
C# is in some way "new Pascal" so there is nothing wrong with porting back
some features from C# to
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Maciej Izak wrote:
2015-07-23 9:21 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt :
But then, all that is just my truth. Yours may be entirely different.
That is why we have $MODESWITCH and $MODE :). We can all be happy. Please
do not destroy the enthusiasm of others.
I don't mean
2015-07-23 9:22 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt :
>
> Yes, they do.
>
> Michael.
>
Not completely :)
best regards,
Maciej Izak
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
2015-07-23 9:21 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt :
>
> But then, all that is just my truth. Yours may be entirely different.
>
That is why we have $MODESWITCH and $MODE :). We can all be happy. Please
do not destroy the enthusiasm of others.
Best regards,
Maciej Izak (hnb.c...@gmail.com)
__
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Maciej Izak wrote:
2015-07-23 8:04 GMT+02:00 Sven Barth :
Am 22.07.2015 23:13 schrieb "Maciej Izak" :
Sorry Sven but I do agree with inline variable declarations. You don't
have exclusive rights to dictate what is main point of Pascal (there is
also Oxygene, SmartPasca
On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Maciej Izak wrote:
2015-07-22 19:47 GMT+02:00 Sven Barth :
While I agree that type inference /might/ be useful I don't agree with
inline variable declarations. One of the main points of Pascal is declare
before use. While this is somewhat violated with Delphi compatible
2015-07-23 8:04 GMT+02:00 Sven Barth :
> Am 22.07.2015 23:13 schrieb "Maciej Izak" :
> > Sorry Sven but I do agree with inline variable declarations. You don't
> have exclusive rights to dictate what is main point of Pascal (there is
> also Oxygene, SmartPascal). This is your opinion and this is n
Am 22.07.2015 23:13 schrieb "Maciej Izak" :
>
> 2015-07-22 19:47 GMT+02:00 Sven Barth :
>>
>> While I agree that type inference /might/ be useful I don't agree with
inline variable declarations. One of the main points of Pascal is declare
before use. While this is somewhat violated with Delphi comp
Steve Smith wrote:
On 22/07/15 19:20, Paul van Helden wrote:
I have never managed to understand why "declare before use" is so
important
to Pascal. I get the bit about strong typing and doing everything
possible
to eliminate errors at compile time, but I still don't get why. If
this is
centra
2015-07-22 23:16 GMT+02:00 Marco van de Voort :
> By that reasoning I can't tell that C++ isn't the new Pascal either.
Everything is relative. Languages derived from each other and that's ok.
best regards,
Maciej Izak
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-de
2015-07-22 20:20 GMT+02:00 Paul van Helden :
> I have never managed to understand why "declare before use" is so
> important to Pascal. I get the bit about strong typing and doing everything
> possible to eliminate errors at compile time, but I still don't get why. If
> this is central to what mak
In our previous episode, Maciej Izak said:
> Sorry Sven but I do agree with inline variable declarations. You don't have
> exclusive rights to dictate what is main point of Pascal (there is also
> Oxygene, SmartPascal). This is your opinion and this is not ultimate truth.
> There is also community
2015-07-22 19:47 GMT+02:00 Sven Barth :
> While I agree that type inference /might/ be useful I don't agree with
> inline variable declarations. One of the main points of Pascal is declare
> before use. While this is somewhat violated with Delphi compatible generics
> there one could at least argu
On 7/22/2015 1:13 PM, Paul van Helden wrote:
Ralf, I guess I'm talking about losing the third hand and join all the
other languages with two hands (so, minus the var block before begin
:-) ). This is not about being lazy, but about being less verbose. Or
in other words shorter text which is m
On 22.07.2015 20:20, Paul van Helden wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Sven Barth mailto:pascaldra...@googlemail.com>> wrote:
> I'm not a compiler programmer, but it almost seems like laziness that the
second case is not possible already? Maybe something is really hard with
multi-wo
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Ralf Quint wrote:
> On 7/22/2015 10:47 AM, Sven Barth wrote:
>
>> > var A := SomeClassInstance.SomeFunction;
>>
>> While I agree that type inference /might/ be useful I don't agree with
>> inline variable declarations. One of the main points of Pascal is declare
>
On 22/07/15 19:20, Paul van Helden wrote:
I have never managed to understand why "declare before use" is so important
to Pascal. I get the bit about strong typing and doing everything possible
to eliminate errors at compile time, but I still don't get why. If this is
central to what makes somethi
On 7/22/2015 10:47 AM, Sven Barth wrote:
> var A := SomeClassInstance.SomeFunction;
While I agree that type inference /might/ be useful I don't agree with
inline variable declarations. One of the main points of Pascal is
declare before use.
+100
Things like this is just because people are
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Paul van Helden said:
> > > Yes, so for example we currently have:
> >
> > if not (X is TSomeClass) then ..
> > if not (5 in [1,2,3]) then ..
> >
> > What is wrong with a language evolving to allow (in addition
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Sven Barth
wrote:
>
> > I'm not a compiler programmer, but it almost seems like laziness that
> the second case is not possible already? Maybe something is really hard
> with multi-word operators?
>
> The compiler is geared towards single word operators (combined w
In our previous episode, Paul van Helden said:
> > Yes, so for example we currently have:
>
> if not (X is TSomeClass) then ..
> if not (5 in [1,2,3]) then ..
>
> What is wrong with a language evolving to allow (in addition to the
> above)?:
Evolution in languages is like the evolution in organi
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 7:43 PM, Jonas Maebe
wrote:
> On 22/07/15 19:24, Paul van Helden wrote:
> > What is wrong with a language evolving to allow (in addition to the
> above)?:
> >
> > if X is not TSomeClass then ..
> > if 5 not in [1,2,3] then ..
> >
> > I'm not a compiler programmer, but it a
Am 22.07.2015 19:25 schrieb "Paul van Helden" :
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Ralf Quint wrote:
>> > [...] And quite frankly, what I have seen in object oriented code
>> > in recent years, I would rather take as a negative example
On 22/07/15 19:24, Paul van Helden wrote:
> What is wrong with a language evolving to allow (in addition to the above)?:
>
> if X is not TSomeClass then ..
> if 5 not in [1,2,3] then ..
>
> I'm not a compiler programmer, but it almost seems like laziness that
> the second case is not possible alr
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Ralf Quint wrote:
> > [...] And quite frankly, what I have seen in object oriented code
> > in recent years, I would rather take as a negative example of evolution,
> of
> > ways/things not to go/do...
>
>
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Ralf Quint wrote:
> [...] And quite frankly, what I have seen in object oriented code
> in recent years, I would rather take as a negative example of evolution, of
> ways/things not to go/do...
That is true.
Many programmers think that coding using object orientat
On 7/19/2015 11:03 PM, Sven Barth wrote:
The way we write software evolves however. Things that were thought as
state of the art 25 years ago aren't necessarily nowadays (for example
procedural programming that has been mostly superseded by object
oriented programming). And in this regards pr
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:03 AM, Sven Barth wrote:
> The way we write software evolves however. Things that were thought as state
> of the art 25 years ago aren't necessarily nowadays (for example procedural
> programming that has been mostly superseded by object oriented programming).
> And in th
Am 20.07.2015 09:21 schrieb "Marco van de Voort" :
>
> In our previous episode, Sven Barth said:
> > The way we write software evolves however. Things that were thought as
> > state of the art 25 years ago aren't necessarily nowadays (for example
> > procedural programming that has been mostly supe
In our previous episode, Sven Barth said:
> The way we write software evolves however. Things that were thought as
> state of the art 25 years ago aren't necessarily nowadays (for example
> procedural programming that has been mostly superseded by object oriented
> programming). And in this regards
Am 19.07.2015 23:43 schrieb "Ralf Quint" :
> Now today, I do not necessarily agree with the direction Embarcadero
heading these days with Delphi and most importantly (for me), I do not
agree with all those attempts to add "features" of other languages to Free
Pascal. I appreciate the efforts of the
I am quite aware of ISO Pascal.. Though, to be fair it wasn't well
known and the tools for adding 'rfc' style proposals must not have been
great? I've proposed a few new properties to the CSS documents standard,
and you know what? It felt great. They're discussing it now and I can
track it.
On 7/19/2015 2:03 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
Den wrote:
Just like ECMAScript,
C++, PHP, most languages now have a 'standards' document behind it.
That's their *roadmap*. Their *leadership*. Design it and the
*community* will show *support*.
ISO Pascal and ISO Extended Pascal were like that in the
Am 19.07.2015 13:18 schrieb "Jonas Maebe" :
>
> On 19/07/15 11:12, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > Nevertheless, I must agree a roadmap for FPC with some detailed
> > proposals would be nice.
>
> I've created a page with what I know is under development at
> http://wiki.freepascal.org/FPC_Roadmap
>
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 19/07/15 11:12, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Nevertheless, I must agree a roadmap for FPC with some detailed
proposals would be nice.
I've created a page with what I know is under development at
http://wiki.freepascal.org/FPC_Roadmap
Just arbitrary
On 19/07/15 11:12, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> Nevertheless, I must agree a roadmap for FPC with some detailed
> proposals would be nice.
I've created a page with what I know is under development at
http://wiki.freepascal.org/FPC_Roadmap
Just arbitrary proposals of what some people think would a
Jonas Maebe wrote:
Den wrote:
Just like ECMAScript,
C++, PHP, most languages now have a 'standards' document behind it.
That's their *roadmap*. Their *leadership*. Design it and the
*community* will show *support*.
ISO Pascal and ISO Extended Pascal were like that in the early 90s:
1) there wa
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
> And still almost no one uses ISO/Extended Pascal anymore. Why? Possibly
> because the de facto Pascal standards had already become Think Pascal on
> the Mac and Turbo Pascal on the PC by then, and none of those
> programmers wanted to rewrite all of t
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015, Jonas Maebe wrote:
Den wrote:
Just like ECMAScript,
C++, PHP, most languages now have a 'standards' document behind it.
That's their *roadmap*. Their *leadership*. Design it and the
*community* will show *support*.
ISO Pascal and ISO Extended Pascal were like that in th
Den wrote:
Just like ECMAScript,
C++, PHP, most languages now have a 'standards' document behind it.
That's their *roadmap*. Their *leadership*. Design it and the
*community* will show *support*.
ISO Pascal and ISO Extended Pascal were like that in the early 90s:
1) there was an official ISO st
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015, Den wrote:
Hi all,
There's been recent talk about adding a new dialect and such, and I just
wanna weigh in that I don't think it's a very good call to split Free Pascal
even more.. I believe Free Pascal had such potential.. And the reason I
mention 'had' is the fact
Hi all,
There's been recent talk about adding a new dialect and such, and I
just wanna weigh in that I don't think it's a very good call to split
Free Pascal even more.. I believe Free Pascal had such potential.. And
the reason I mention 'had' is the fact that makes Free Pascal 'strong'
a
83 matches
Mail list logo
