On 29-11-2011 21:53, Jonas Maebe wrote:
It actually perfectly describes what you want to do, be it only
regarding things that can be checked by only relying on the compiler.
I'm not sure whether the limited applicability of such a feature
(mainly usable if you don't use, like you, the standard
On Tue, November 29, 2011 19:19, Thaddy wrote:
> On 29-11-2011 18:49, Tomas Hajny wrote:
.
.
> There's a documented delphi version: almost complete D7 support *by the
> compiler* and by now d2006 now almost feature complete.
> If you read me correct, I won't try to do any rtl related stuff. It is
On 29 Nov 2011, at 19:19, Thaddy wrote:
> There's a documented delphi version: almost complete D7 support *by the
> compiler* and by now d2006 now almost feature complete.
That only works in one way: the compiler can support most of D7 and D2006, but
if you check for everything the compiler s
In our previous episode, Thaddy said:
> There's a documented delphi version: almost complete D7 support *by the
> compiler* and by now d2006 now almost feature complete.
That goes for the release branch that is already in freeze. New features
will go into trunk, which will have, among others, the
On 29-11-2011 18:49, Tomas Hajny wrote:
Which Delphi version would be the supposedly supported one? If this is
not explicitly defined, compilation might still fail when people using
lower Delphi versions try to compile the code. Do you really want to
track the feature set (especially for smalle
On Tue, November 29, 2011 17:51, Thaddy wrote:
> On 29-11-2011 16:54, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
>> mode delphi is used in a huge amount of code, so any break in
>> backwards compatibility here would be extremely unwelcome. It surely
>> would break a lot of code that I wrote. But yes, $mode
On 29-11-2011 16:54, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
mode delphi is used in a huge amount of code, so any break in
backwards compatibility here would be extremely unwelcome. It surely
would break a lot of code that I wrote. But yes, $mode strictdelphi
looks like a good idea if you want to im
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Thaddy wrote:
> So, much like $mode objfpc extends the syntax let $mode delphi restrict the
> syntax.
> There is a case to make that f.e. the C style operators and the macro
> facilities belong to $mode objfpc anyway.
> Or am I wrong here?
> Or is there value in it
On 29 Nov 2011, at 16:14, Thaddy wrote:
On 29-11-2011 15:46, Jonas Maebe wrote:
Possibly, but it would also require RTL changes (the FPC system
unit contains many types, constants, variables and functions that
do not exist in Delphi -- and for programmers the difference
between the langua
BTW I am aware I can solve this at the sourcecode level with defines - I
just did that -, but would prefer one of my suggestions.
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
On 29-11-2011 15:46, Jonas Maebe wrote:
Possibly, but it would also require RTL changes (the FPC system unit
contains many types, constants, variables and functions that do not
exist in Delphi -- and for programmers the difference between the
language and the system unit is often not very clear
11 matches
Mail list logo
