On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
wrote:
>> (a, b) := (b, a); // the compiler needs to ensure the correct usage of
>> temps here!
>
>
> What will happen here?
>
> At compile time a tuple type (integer; integer) has to be defined, and an
> instance must be allocated for it. I
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013, Alexander Klenin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 4:43 AM, Sven Barth wrote:
Based on the results of the "for-in-index" thread I've decided to come up
with a draft for the Tuple type which is thought by many people to be a
better alternative to "for-in-index".
Please note
On 27.01.2013 02:35, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
Sven Barth schrieb:
* Description
What are tuples? Tuples are an accumulation of values of different or
same type where the order matters. Sounds familiar? They are in this
regard similar to records, but it's only the order of an element that
ma
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
>> 2.1) Tuples are always temporary and anonymous. You can not store a
>> tuple, define tuple type, of variable of tuple type.
>> So tuples are 100% static, compile-time feature -- no change to
>> RTTI, variants etc.
> No.
>
> I think t
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013, Alexander Klenin wrote:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
2.1) Tuples are always temporary and anonymous. You can not store a
tuple, define tuple type, of variable of tuple type.
So tuples are 100% static, compile-time feature -- no change to
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 11:29 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
>>
>> Let me restate:
>> 1) Tuple as a type does nothing new compared to a record, except for
>> possibility to omit field names.
> That's all we need.
I disagree. In fact, the ability to omit field names is, in my opinion,
the least val
27.01.13, 1:43, Sven Barth wrote:
Based on the results of the "for-in-index" thread I've decided to come
up with a draft for the Tuple type which is thought by many people to be
a better alternative to "for-in-index".
I think it is big overkill to implement a new base type for such a small
tas
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013, Paul Ishenin wrote:
27.01.13, 1:43, Sven Barth wrote:
Based on the results of the "for-in-index" thread I've decided to come
up with a draft for the Tuple type which is thought by many people to be
a better alternative to "for-in-index".
I think it is big overkill to im
On 26 Jan 2013, at 21:45, Alexander Klenin wrote:
> 2.2.2) Any record or array type may be converted to a tuple of its
> elements using either assignment or "Tuple" intrinsic.
> For example: Tuple(ARectangle) is a tuple of 4 elements;
> x, y := APoint; // same as x := APoint.x; y := APoint.y;
[sn
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Paul Ishenin wrote:
> 27.01.13, 1:43, Sven Barth wrote:
>>
>> Based on the results of the "for-in-index" thread I've decided to come
>> up with a draft for the Tuple type which is thought by many people to be
>> a better alternative to "for-in-index".
> I think it
On 27/01/2013 14:42, Alexander Klenin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Paul Ishenin wrote:
27.01.13, 1:43, Sven Barth wrote:
Based on the results of the "for-in-index" thread I've decided to come
up with a draft for the Tuple type which is thought by many people to be
a better alternati
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> you no longer have a tuple type, but rather a
> deconstruct_into_component_types()
> type conversion operator along with anonymous records.
Yes, this is quite close to what I wanted to propose.
I am glad someone has understood me :)
Please see
I'm trying to compile fpc on a new FreeBsd 9.1 machine, I've installed iconv
and libiconv from ports, but /usr/bin/ld keeps complaining about cannot finding
-liconv.
Any hint?.
Leonardo M. Ramé
http://leonardorame.blogspot.com___
fpc-devel maillist
On 27 Jan 2013, at 16:03, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote:
> I'm trying to compile fpc on a new FreeBsd 9.1 machine, I've installed iconv
> and libiconv from ports, but /usr/bin/ld keeps complaining about cannot
> finding -liconv.
Install libiconv-dev, libiconv-devel or something like that.
Jonas
>
> From: Jonas Maebe
>To: "FPC developers' list"
>Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 12:13 PM
>Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Freebsd 9.1 -liconv not found
>
>
>
>
>On 27 Jan 2013, at 16:03, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote:
>
>I'm trying to compile fpc on a new FreeBsd 9.1 machin
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Martin wrote:
>> Of course. But note that in this thread, many more uses of tuples
>> (which I do NOT want to make a type -- see my previous mail for
>> lengthy explanation why).
>> Some of the uses are: record and array constructors, adaptation of
>> inconvenient
2013/1/26 Sven Barth :
> On 26.01.2013 12:52, Alexander Klenin wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Sven Barth
>> wrote:
Generics was implemented without my knowledge. I only found out when
suddenly
the classes unit had been changed to use them. After a horrible
In our previous episode, Leonardo M. Ram? said:
> I'm trying to compile fpc on a new FreeBsd 9.1 machine, I've installed iconv
> and libiconv from ports, but /usr/bin/ld keeps complaining about cannot
> finding -liconv.?
>Any hint?.
Pass -Fl/usr/local/lib in OPT=""
_
- Original Message -
> From: Marco van de Voort
> To: Leonardo M. Ramé ; FPC developers' list
>
> Cc:
> Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 12:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Freebsd 9.1 -liconv not found
>
> In our previous episode, Leonardo M. Ram? said:
>> I'm trying to compile fpc on
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Alexander Klenin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Paul Ishenin wrote:
27.01.13, 1:43, Sven Barth wrote:
Based on the results of the "for-in-index" thread I've decided to come
up with a draft for the Tuple type which is thought by many people to be
a better alter
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Alexander Klenin wrote:
>> I have a compromise suggestion:
>> Implement for-index extension with the syntax:
>> for (k, v) in a do
>> this syntax is forward-compatible with both tuples proposals,
>> is simple to
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Alexander Klenin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Alexander Klenin wrote:
I have a compromise suggestion:
Implement for-index extension with the syntax:
for (k, v) in a do
this syntax is forward-compatible with bo
On 27.01.2013 16:27, luiz americo pereira camara wrote:
2013/1/26 Sven Barth :
On 26.01.2013 12:52, Alexander Klenin wrote:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Sven Barth
wrote:
Generics was implemented without my knowledge. I only found out when
suddenly
the classes unit had been changed to
Preface: In the following I assume that tuples can be implemented by
records. The proposed syntax extensions can be applied to records as
well, they are not restricted to a new type.
Alexander Klenin schrieb:
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
wrote:
(a, b) := (b, a); /
Sven Barth schrieb:
The lack of element names results in bloated code and runtime overhead.
See below.
I don't see why it should result in bloated code and runtime overhead.
---> See below ;-)
(a, b) := (b, a); // the compiler needs to ensure the correct usage
of temps here!
What wil
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013, Sven Barth wrote:
On 27.01.2013 16:27, luiz americo pereira camara wrote:
2013/1/26 Sven Barth :
On 26.01.2013 12:52, Alexander Klenin wrote:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Sven Barth
wrote:
Generics was implemented without my knowledge. I only found out when
sud
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
> Define an iterator type/operator.
>
> - No interface
> - No 'specially named function' in the class. The iterator should be
> separate from the class.
> Now they promoted 1 function with a special name to a special status:
> 'GetEnumera
On Mon, 28 Jan 2013, Alexander Klenin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
Define an iterator type/operator.
- No interface
- No 'specially named function' in the class. The iterator should be
separate from the class.
Now they promoted 1 function with a special
2013/1/27 Sven Barth :
> On 27.01.2013 16:27, luiz americo pereira camara wrote:
>>
>>
>> I did some test with generics last year:
>> http://lazarusroad.blogspot.com.br/2012/06/cost-of-using-generics.html
>>
>> I would not use in classes unit
>
>
> That's mostly about the "duplication" problem, whi
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
wrote:
> Preface: In the following I assume that tuples can be implemented by
> records. The proposed syntax extensions can be applied to records as well,
> they are not restricted to a new type.
Ok, with a few caveats listed below.
>> Any ti
On 27.01.2013 20:16, Alexander Klenin wrote:
Borland did a world of good for (Object) Pascal, up to Delphi 7.
After that, it went seriously downhill in my opinion; Adding randomly
features without clear direction or regard for the
intent and philosophy of the Pascal language - or so it seems to m
On 27.01.2013 20:46, luiz americo pereira camara wrote:
What would have been more
interesting is the performance of the generated code compared with e.g. a
TStringList or a TObjectList.
Independent of the performance, what's the benefit of replacing the
current implementation by one based in ge
On 27.01.2013 19:09, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013, Sven Barth wrote:
On 27.01.2013 16:27, luiz americo pereira camara wrote:
2013/1/26 Sven Barth :
On 26.01.2013 12:52, Alexander Klenin wrote:
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 10:50 PM, Sven Barth
wrote:
Generics was implemente
2013/1/27 Sven Barth :
> On 27.01.2013 20:46, luiz americo pereira camara wrote:
>>>
>>> What would have been more
>>> interesting is the performance of the generated code compared with e.g. a
>>> TStringList or a TObjectList.
>>
>>
>> Independent of the performance, what's the benefit of replacing
34 matches
Mail list logo
