I get the impression that you want to use Pascal for something it wasn't
designed for. Even if you can find some kind of solution, it will
probably be a bad hack. But that question is probably for fpc-other.
So anyway, the only solution I can think of is to automatically comment
out the shebang
When the routine being passed as a parameter is in the top
level of the unit, PrPublic, all is well; the expected pointers are
passed. When an identical routine PrPrivate is hidden inside
the top level routine Test_it, the expected 2nd pointer appears
in place of the first and an
On 10/15/2011 9:10 AM, Roland Schäfer wrote:
Good look,
I meant luck, of course.
Roland
On 10/15/2011 12:56 AM, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
Yeah, I know to chmod my scripts before dot-slashing them. It's just that
fpc can't handle shebangs, and I don't want to have to choose either
On Sat, October 15, 2011 00:43, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
Thanks ik. Merf, it appears fpc can't compile when a shebang is added. In
future versions, can fpc treat shebangs as comments so that instantfpc
code
could be compiled like normal Free Pascal code?
.
.
While I agree with others
In our previous episode, Andrew Pennebaker said:
Thanks ik. Merf, it appears fpc can't compile when a shebang is added. In
future versions, can fpc treat shebangs as comments so that instantfpc code
could be compiled like normal Free Pascal code?
I'm not sure that went into 2.4.4 at the same
Rich Saunders schrieb:
On 10/14/11 2:39 AM, Nataraj S Narayan wrote:
Good candidate for recursive algorithm i think.
At first glance maybe, but it is actually a horrible candidate. That is
due to the fact that the number of values is unknown and recursion has a
built-in limit based on the
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
Yeah, I know to chmod my scripts before dot-slashing them. It's just that fpc
can't handle shebangs, and I don't
want to have to choose either scripting or compiled. I like my Pascal code to
be work in either mode.
It's always compiled.
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
Yeah, I know to chmod my scripts before dot-slashing them. It's just that
fpc can't handle shebangs, and I don't
want to have to choose either scripting or compiled. I like my Pascal code
to be work in either mode.
It's always
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 00:29:28 +0200
ik wrote:
InstantFPC http://wiki.freepascal.org/InstantFPC
Now, you realy made my day :))
I am using FPC and Lazarus for very nice things almost every day and
I love it.
I missed something like InstantFPC. Congratulations!!! Please keep up
the good work guys.
Am 15.10.2011 12:10, schrieb Marco van de Voort:
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
Yeah, I know to chmod my scripts before dot-slashing them. It's just that
fpc can't handle shebangs, and I don't
want to have to choose either scripting or compiled. I like my Pascal code
to
Good idea, van de Voort. Can someone confirm that fpc plays nicely with
shebangs in a version after 2.4.4?
And Schäfer, I respect Pascal for being a compiled language. I myself and
fond of Haskell. But Haskell has a scripted mode, and instantfpc, like all
good interpreters, compiles code in the
In our previous episode, Andrew Pennebaker said:
Good idea, van de Voort. Can someone confirm that fpc plays nicely with
shebangs in a version after 2.4.4?
I just tried, and it doesn't. I assume that it was talked about and got stuck in
my mind, but it never really was implemented.
And
On 15 Oct 2011, at 17:24, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
Good idea, van de Voort. Can someone confirm that fpc plays nicely with
shebangs in a version after 2.4.4?
It doesn't.
Jonas
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
Hestermann:
Indeed, compiled programs will always run faster than interpreted programs.
The value in scripting is that an interpreted environment allows coders to
rapidly go through write code / test code loops. Interpreters let you
explore your own codebase, like gdb but far more powerful.
Andrew Pennebaker schrieb:
Adding shebangs to fpc wouldn't kill Pascal or compiled programming.
Of course not. It just binds man power to something useless (IMO).
It would welcome scripting programmers into the Pascal community, and
let Pascal programmers write and test code more quickly.
Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net hat am 15. Oktober 2011 um 05:03 geschrieben:
At 03:56 PM 10/14/2011, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
Yeah, I know to chmod my scripts before dot-slashing them. It's just
that fpc can't handle shebangs, and I don't want to have to choose
either scripting or
Tomas Hajny xhaj...@hajny.biz hat am 15. Oktober 2011 um 10:19 geschrieben:
On Sat, October 15, 2011 00:43, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
Thanks ik. Merf, it appears fpc can't compile when a shebang is added. In
future versions, can fpc treat shebangs as comments so that instantfpc
code
At 09:30 AM 10/15/2011, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
Indeed, compiled programs will always run faster than interpreted
programs. The value in scripting is that an interpreted environment
allows coders to rapidly go through write code / test code loops.
Interpreters let you explore your own
Am 15.10.2011 19:21, schrieb Ralf A. Quint:
At 09:30 AM 10/15/2011, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
Indeed, compiled programs will always run faster than interpreted
programs. The value in scripting is that an interpreted environment
allows coders to rapidly go through write code / test code loops.
Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net hat am 15. Oktober 2011 um 19:15 geschrieben:
At 10:00 AM 10/15/2011, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Ralf A. Quint free...@gmx.net hat am 15. Oktober 2011 um 05:03
geschrieben: At 03:56 PM 10/14/2011, Andrew Pennebaker
wrote: Yeah, I know to chmod my scripts
How do you write scripts? With a text editor? Then you don't have a debugger
at hand, no syntax highlighting, etc. And this lets you write code quick?
Not for me.
There may be a language barrier here. When I say text editor, I mean
something like vi, Emacs, TextMate, Eclipse. Syntax highlighting
Good candidate for recursive algorithm i think.
At first glance maybe, but it is actually a horrible candidate.
IMHO, this is far from being a problem that needs to be solved with
recursion. Indeed, you don't need recursion at all: you have a file, and
just need to sum its values till
On 15.10.2011 19:56, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
Yes, software bloat is to be avoided. In the simplest terms, I'm asking
for fpc to consider shebangs as comments. That little syntactical
addition wouldn't bloat fpc by much at all, but it would allow the same
code to be compiled by fans of fpc, and
On 15.10.2011 01:01, andrew.benn...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote:
As part of an attempt at multi-threading, I have had to move
many things that used to be global into the Implementation
parts of units in order to enforce privacy. When I moved a
routine passed as a parameter and put it inside the
On Sat, October 15, 2011 19:56, Andrew Pennebaker wrote:
.
.
No debugger at hand? An interpreter *is* a debugger.
No, not with InstantFPC (even if I should consider InstantFPC an
interpreter which it isn't). Interpreters don't provide real debugging
support (stepping through the code line by
On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:24:36 +0200 Ludo Brands
ludo.bra...@free.fr wrote
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:01:47 -0300 andrew.benn...@ns.sympatico.ca wrote
When the routine being passed as a parameter is in the top level of the
unit, PrPublic, all is well; the expected pointers are passed. When an
Barth:
Yes, there is a distinction to be made between an interpreted environment,
say, GHCi, and instantfpc, which is simply a compiler wrapper just advanced
enough to let you ./ your Pascal programs. With a little more work,
instantfpc could become an interpreted environment.
I'll see if I can
15.10.2011 2:25, Andrew Pennebaker пишет:
E.g., if fpi existed, I would add a shebang like this to my code:
#!/usr/bin/env fpi
Cheers,
Andrew Pennebaker
www.yellosoft.us http://www.yellosoft.us
___
fpc-pascal maillist -
28 matches
Mail list logo
