Re: [fpc-pascal] Bls: Quick Modern Object Pascal Introduction, for Programmers

2016-06-20 5:31 GMT+02:00 Mr Bee : [...] > I have a little suggestion though. I prefer to use {$J-} directive in my > Pascal program. I think it encourages good programming practice in Pascal. > The {$J-} means constant is a constant no matter how you declare it. To bad > FPC

Re: [fpc-pascal] (Unix) file locking

On 2016-06-21 00:37, Fabio Luis Girardi wrote: > > > 2016-06-20 18:15 GMT-03:00 Björn Lundin >: > > > on Linux and AIX I use lockf. > then read() and write() from the os. > However I lock the whole file, but the manpage says it

[fpc-pascal] Bls: Quick Modern Object Pascal Introduction, for Programmers

Good work, sir. Thank you very much. I might use your article to direct people who still thinks Pascal today is still like the old Pascal of the 70's. :)  I have a little suggestion though. I prefer to use {$J-} directive in my Pascal program. I think it encourages good programming practice in

Re: [fpc-pascal] (Unix) file locking

2016-06-20 18:15 GMT-03:00 Björn Lundin : > > > on Linux and AIX I use lockf. > then read() and write() from the os. > However I lock the whole file, but the manpage says it is possible to > lock parts of it. > > > This can be used to lock character devices, like

Re: [fpc-pascal] default parameter single = NaN

On 06/20/2016 02:53 PM, Martin wrote: On 20/06/2016 22:45, David Emerson wrote: I found a workaround, which is to use Infinity as the default value, instead of NaN. It's acceptable for my use, though a little awkward. there is another workaround. Do not repeat the default value at

Re: [fpc-pascal] default parameter single = NaN

On 06/20/2016 02:43 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote: On 20/06/16 22:59, David Emerson wrote: Error: function header doesn't match the previous declaration for a (non-method) function that does exactly match its previous declaration: function make_scale_matrix (zx:single; zy:single=NaN):t_2d_affine;

Re: [fpc-pascal] default parameter single = NaN

On 20/06/2016 22:45, David Emerson wrote: I found a workaround, which is to use Infinity as the default value, instead of NaN. It's acceptable for my use, though a little awkward. there is another workaround. Do not repeat the default value at implementation. Declare as function

Re: [fpc-pascal] default parameter single = NaN

I found a workaround, which is to use Infinity as the default value, instead of NaN. It's acceptable for my use, though a little awkward. ~David ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org

Re: [fpc-pascal] default parameter single = NaN

On 20/06/16 22:59, David Emerson wrote: Error: function header doesn't match the previous declaration for a (non-method) function that does exactly match its previous declaration: function make_scale_matrix (zx:single; zy:single=NaN):t_2d_affine; I use "NaN" extensively to indicate a null /

[fpc-pascal] default parameter single = NaN

Hey all, After installing fpc 3.0.0, I'm getting an... Error: function header doesn't match the previous declaration for a (non-method) function that does exactly match its previous declaration: function make_scale_matrix (zx:single; zy:single=NaN):t_2d_affine; I use "NaN" extensively to

Re: [fpc-pascal] (Unix) file locking

On 2016-06-20 11:28, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: > I'm approaching a situation where up to four identical processes will be > reading and writing the same files. There will be process-level > synchronisation which should prevent clashes, but I'd still like to add > locking at the file level. > > I

Re: [fpc-pascal] (Unix) file locking

Jonas Maebe wrote: On 20/06/16 11:28, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: I'm approaching a situation where up to four identical processes will be reading and writing the same files. There will be process-level synchronisation which should prevent clashes, but I'd still like to add locking at the file

Re: [fpc-pascal] (Unix) file locking

On 20/06/16 11:28, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: I'm approaching a situation where up to four identical processes will be reading and writing the same files. There will be process-level synchronisation which should prevent clashes, but I'd still like to add locking at the file level. If you use

Re: [fpc-pascal] What is the difference between case else and case otherwise

Am 20.06.2016 17:19 schrieb "Dennis" : > > There is no details on http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/ref/refsu57.html There is none by itself (except that "otherwise" is Extended ISO Pascal compliant). The only visible difference would be if you'd have a if-statement as

Re: [fpc-pascal] What is the difference between case else and case otherwise

In GNU Pascal otherwise is synonymous to else. http://www.getlazarus.org/learn/language/lexical/#case_condition ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

[fpc-pascal] What is the difference between case else and case otherwise

There is no details on http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/ref/refsu57.html Thanks in advance. Dennis ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Re: [fpc-pascal] Quick Modern Object Pascal Introduction, for Programmers

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Michalis Kamburelis wrote: > > Hi, > > So, I wrote a document describing (quickly!) many features of the > modern Object Pascal:) > > Read on: > >

Re: [fpc-pascal] Quick Modern Object Pascal Introduction, for Programmers

Am 20.06.2016 11:56 schrieb "Mark Morgan Lloyd" < markmll.fpc-pas...@telemetry.co.uk>: > There's a few places where a native English author would have done things a bit differently. For example, in most places "Castle Game Engine" would probably be prefixed by "the", and also "it allows

Re: [fpc-pascal] Quick Modern Object Pascal Introduction, for Programmers

Michalis Kamburelis wrote: Hi, So, I wrote a document describing (quickly!) many features of the modern Object Pascal:) Read on: http://michalis.ii.uni.wroc.pl/~michalis/modern_pascal_introduction/modern_pascal_introduction.html

[fpc-pascal] (Unix) file locking

I'm approaching a situation where up to four identical processes will be reading and writing the same files. There will be process-level synchronisation which should prevent clashes, but I'd still like to add locking at the file level. I presume that what I should be looking at is