I know this is an area of some confusion, and the more explanations I
read the more I'm confused.
I've got a procedure like this
procedure ClrDebug(const panels: array of const);
var i: integer;
begin
for i := 0 to Length(panels) - 1 do
ClrDebug(panels[i])
end { ClrDebug
ClrDebug(panels[i]) calls itself again and not
procedure ClrDebug(panel: integer)...
So stack overflow happens.
If you need it only for integers then declare it as:
procedure ClrDebug(const panels: array of integer)
--
cobines
___
fpc-pascal maillist
cobines wrote:
ClrDebug(panels[i]) calls itself again and not
procedure ClrDebug(panel: integer)...
So stack overflow happens.
If you need it only for integers then declare it as:
procedure ClrDebug(const panels: array of integer)
Thanks. Making sure it couldn't recurse fixes half the probl
2012/4/22 Mark Morgan Lloyd :
> but I'm not sure why that works when it
> didn't earlier (i.e. before I'd started using array of const).
You said you used
DbgArray= array of integer
then I assume this declaration?
procedure ClrDebug(const panels: DbgArray);
If so the parameter is a dynamic arra
cobines wrote:
2012/4/22 Mark Morgan Lloyd :
but I'm not sure why that works when it
didn't earlier (i.e. before I'd started using array of const).
You said you used
DbgArray= array of integer
then I assume this declaration?
procedure ClrDebug(const panels: DbgArray);
If so the parameter is
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
cobines wrote:
2012/4/22 Mark Morgan Lloyd :
but I'm not sure why that works when it
didn't earlier (i.e. before I'd started using array of const).
You said you used
DbgArray= array of integer
then I assume this declaration?
procedure ClrDebu
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
cobines wrote:
2012/4/22 Mark Morgan Lloyd :
but I'm not sure why that works when it
didn't earlier (i.e. before I'd started using array of const).
You said you used
DbgArray= array of integer
then I assume this decl
On 22 Apr 2012, at 12:54, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
> you quite simply can't do that when there isn't an explicit index range since
> your attempt to define an open array is interpreted as a dynamic array.
Yes. The reason is that you can't declare variables whose type is "open array".
In fact,
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 01:54:17 +0200, Bernd wrote about [fpc-pascal]
header translation question: I need an int sized boolean:
>I have this from the GLIB heads:
>
>typedef intgint;
>typedef gint gboolean;
>
>Now I need a few packed records with such gboolean types in them. On
>my i386 I am now
2012/4/22 David W Noon :
> Without any "long" prefix
> an integer remains 32-bit.
> [...]
> Leave it as you currently have it.
Thanks, this sounds good.
For the record: I was trying to port this:
http://developer.pidgin.im/wiki/CHowTo/BasicPluginHowto
to FPC and now I have posted the results o
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 01:54:17 +0200
Bernd wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have this from the GLIB heads:
>
> typedef intgint;
> typedef gint gboolean;
Why not use gboolean from the glib unit?
Mattias
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.o
Am 22. April 2012 16:46 schrieb Mattias Gaertner :
> Why not use gboolean from the glib unit?
I didn't know it exists, so I didn't even try to search for it
Thanks for the info :-)
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.
In our previous episode, Bernd said:
> I have this from the GLIB heads:
>
> typedef intgint;
> typedef gint gboolean;
>
> Now I need a few packed records with such gboolean types in them. On
> my i386 I am now just using
That's afaik a wrong translation. longbool are true <>0, while gboole
Am 22. April 2012 17:39 schrieb Marco van de Voort :
> FPC 2.6.0+ introduced boolean8/16/32/64 types for this.
I just saw it in gtypes.inc and wondered what this is, this is the
first time I have seen these new boolean types. Also Lazarus does not
yet know about them in the code completion.
Am 22. April 2012 17:39 schrieb Marco van de Voort :
> gboolean,
> like Pascal booleans, are only true =1.
Just out of curiosity, how can they enforce this for the C compiler
with only some definitions in a header file? Isn't it just an alias
for int? what if i just write
gboolean something;
som
In our previous episode, Bernd said:
> Am 22. April 2012 17:39 schrieb Marco van de Voort :
> > gboolean,
> > like Pascal booleans, are only true =1.
>
> Just out of curiosity, how can they enforce this for the C compiler
> with only some definitions in a header file?
I don't know, I don't use GT
16 matches
Mail list logo
