I was having a bit of fun earlier while waiting for a call. Am I correct
in believing that something like
typet1= array of integer;
var a1: t1;
x: integer;
a1 := [1,2,3,4,5];
can't be done at present, irrespective of any custom definition of the
:= operator?
Is there an
On 15 Apr 2013, at 16:48, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
I was having a bit of fun earlier while waiting for a call. Am I correct in
believing that something like
typet1= array of integer;
var a1: t1;
x: integer;
a1 := [1,2,3,4,5];
can't be done at present, irrespective
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
with an appropriate definition of the + operator without risk that an error
would try to evaluate it as an ordinary arithmetic expression?
We don't have constant to identify a qNaN.
From math:
NaN = 0.0/0.0;
Infinity = 1.0/0.0;
Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 15 Apr 2013, at 16:48, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
I was having a bit of fun earlier while waiting for a call. Am I correct in
believing that something like
typet1= array of integer;
var a1: t1;
x: integer;
a1 := [1,2,3,4,5];
can't be done at present,
Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
with an appropriate definition of the + operator without risk that an error
would try to evaluate it as an ordinary arithmetic expression?
We don't have constant to identify a qNaN.
From math:
NaN = 0.0/0.0;
On 15.04.2013 20:17, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 15 Apr 2013, at 16:48, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote:
I was having a bit of fun earlier while waiting for a call. Am I
correct in believing that something like
typet1= array of integer;
var a1: t1;
x: integer;
a1 :=
Sven Barth wrote:
That's a good point, although obviously ordering would be lost. After
I'd tinkered with it for a while I concluded that it was probably
related to the discussion of tuples a few weeks ago.
Not really.
Also the principial components are already available in the compiler so
Am 15.04.2013 22:32 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd
markmll.fpc-pas...@telemetry.co.uk:
Sven Barth wrote:
That's a good point, although obviously ordering would be lost. After
I'd tinkered with it for a while I concluded that it was probably
related to the discussion of tuples a few weeks ago.
