2016-04-21 6:26 GMT+02:00 Graeme Geldenhuys :
> I don't see a single unit test, so that would make me weary.
>
Feel free to help in that field. I have inner tests, but I don't have time
to adjust them for public release :\ anyway you are right, that can be
confusing.
--
Best regards,
Maciej Iza
2016-04-21 5:44 GMT+02:00 Dennis :
> Has Anyone used Generics.Collections at
> https://github.com/dathox/generics.collections ?
>
> Is it stable enough for production use?
Generics.Collections library is used for daily production in my company
without problems. Especially TDictionary is well tes
On 2016-04-21 04:44, Dennis wrote:
> Is it stable enough for production use?
I don't see a single unit test, so that would make me weary.
Regards,
Graeme
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/
Has Anyone used Generics.Collections at
https://github.com/dathox/generics.collections ?
Is it stable enough for production use?
Dennis
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fp
On 4/20/2016 4:29 AM, Rainer Stratmann wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2016, 07:05:10 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
No. Pascal and ALGOL are closely related, C and ALGOL are closely
related. Pascal and C are not so closely related.
As you can see here Pascal, C, and Basic are very close related.
ht
Hi.
Please continue this thread to the fpc-other list.
Thanks,
Jonas
FPC mailing lists admin
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2016, 12:40:19 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
> > http://www.mikroe.com/compilers
>
> If you want to believe that BASIC- as originally implemented- and ALGOL
> are related then go ahead and do so. But the politest thing I can say is
> that it doesn't make you look particularly w
On 4/19/16, silvioprog wrote:
> Yes, he (Handlei) reported it at Brazillian group, but he didn't tell us
> that had already reported that at bugtracker.
>
> The patch was sent from another member, and he told us that it fix the
> current maskutils.pp unit, I just sent it here as they asked me.
>
Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
Pascal and C are close related.
No. Pascal and ALGOL are closely related, C and ALGOL are closely
related. Pascal and C are not so closely related.
Did ALGOL standarize the preprocessor? The high reliance on preprocess
Rainer Stratmann wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2016, 07:05:10 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
No. Pascal and ALGOL are closely related, C and ALGOL are closely
related. Pascal and C are not so closely related.
As you can see here Pascal, C, and Basic are very close related.
http://www.mikroe.com/c
Am 20.04.2016 13:29 schrieb "Rainer Stratmann" :
>
> Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2016, 07:05:10 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
> > No. Pascal and ALGOL are closely related, C and ALGOL are closely
> > related. Pascal and C are not so closely related.
>
> As you can see here Pascal, C, and Basic are very clo
Am Mittwoch, 20. April 2016, 07:05:10 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:
> No. Pascal and ALGOL are closely related, C and ALGOL are closely
> related. Pascal and C are not so closely related.
As you can see here Pascal, C, and Basic are very close related.
http://www.mikroe.com/compilers
___
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
> >
> > Pascal and C are close related.
>
> No. Pascal and ALGOL are closely related, C and ALGOL are closely
> related. Pascal and C are not so closely related.
Did ALGOL standarize the preprocessor? The high reliance on preprocessor is
often a
Michael Schnell wrote on Tue, 19 Apr 2016:
On 04/19/2016 08:22 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
When any {$codepage xxx} directive is specified, string constants
in the source are represented in a way that makes lossless
conversion to any other code page possible. This conversion to the
target code
Tony Whyman wrote on Wed, 20 Apr 2016:
The problem is that the code makes a direct call to the semctl
function (defined in ipc.pp) and uses the SEM_GETVAL constant as the
command value. "Identifier not found errors" are returned for
SEM_GETVAL (and SEM_SETVAL as well).
That's indeed a bu
BTW.:
http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/rtl/system/defaultsystemcodepage.html says
that DefaultSystemcodepage can be modified in the user code at runtime.
I suppose that will change the way strings with StringCodePage() =
CP_ACP are handled.
I'll do some tests...
-Michael
On 04/19/2016 08:22 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
When any {$codepage xxx} directive is specified, string constants in
the source are represented in a way that makes lossless conversion to
any other code page possible. This conversion to the target code page
is performed at compile time where possible
On 04/19/2016 08:22 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
No, it does not. Please tell me which sentence of
http://wiki.freepascal.org/FPC_Unicode_support#String_constants
suggests that in any way.
I just was making fun of myself, naively supposing the contrary :-) ;-)
-Michael
I have a problem with some existing code that compiled with fpc 2.6.4
under OSX and does not compile with fpc 3.0.0.
The problem is that the code makes a direct call to the semctl function
(defined in ipc.pp) and uses the SEM_GETVAL constant as the command
value. "Identifier not found errors"
2016-04-20 9:32 GMT+02:00 leledumbo :
> But your example doesn't show its use, probabyl you don't understand which
> comma operator I mean. Comma is used both as operator and
> argument/parameter
> separator in C, what I mean is the former, what you show is the latter.
> Here's the wikipedia artic
> C's comma (sequence) operator is possible to use in Pascal
But your example doesn't show its use, probabyl you don't understand which
comma operator I mean. Comma is used both as operator and argument/parameter
separator in C, what I mean is the former, what you show is the latter.
Here's the wi
2016-04-20 8:58 GMT+02:00 leledumbo :
> At syntax level, there's no Pascal equivalent
> of C's comma (sequence) operator. Argument evaluation in C is strictly
> right
> to left, in Pascal it's up to the compiler. A silly but valid C statement:
>
> printf("%d%d%d\n",i++,++i,++i,i++);
>
> would be h
Rainer Stratmann wrote:
That would be great.
It is not that difficult.
{ = begin
} = end
and the other stuff is quite similar.
Pascal and C are close related.
No. Pascal and ALGOL are closely related, C and ALGOL are closely
related. Pascal and C are not so closely related.
If you're loo
23 matches
Mail list logo
