On Sat, 11 Jan 2014, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
Am 2014-01-11 13:14, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
I meant that I use a diagram typesetting package for LaTeX. This package
definitely works like that.
Then something is wrong with this
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Am 2014-01-10 09:09, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
But why is the heading part of the diagram?
Because that is how the typesetting mechanism for syntax diagrams work.
That's not true (at least not in diagrams other than in Free Pascal).
I
Am 2014-01-11 13:14, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
I meant that I use a diagram typesetting package for LaTeX. This package
definitely works like that.
Then something is wrong with this package.
Which one is it?
And as I wrote, there are diagrams which do *not*
repeat the header (diagram
On Sat, 11 Jan 2014, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Am 2014-01-11 13:14, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
I meant that I use a diagram typesetting package for LaTeX. This package
definitely works like that.
Then something is wrong with this package.
Which one is it?
listings.sty
I didn't write
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
Am 2014-01-11 13:14, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
I meant that I use a diagram typesetting package for LaTeX. This package
definitely works like that.
Then something is wrong with this package.
Which one is it?
listings.sty
On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Constantine Yannakopoulos wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 08.01.2014 22:01, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
You can preview the result at
http://www.freepascal.org/~michael/ref/refch3.html
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Am 2014-01-09 08:26, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
That what should be declared is repeated in the declaration
itself which makes no sense to me.
A syntax diagram for 'type declaration' (which is written in the heading
already)
The heading is a
Am 2014-01-10 09:09, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
But why is the heading part of the diagram?
Because that is how the typesetting mechanism for syntax diagrams work.
That's not true (at least not in diagrams other than in Free Pascal).
It is very illogical to begin a diagram with the name of
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 08.01.2014 22:01, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
You can preview the result at
http://www.freepascal.org/~michael/ref/refch3.html
You might additionally mention that these type aliases also allow different
operator and (AFAIK also) function overloads.
Am 2014-01-09 08:26, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
That what should be declared is repeated in the declaration
itself which makes no sense to me.
A syntax diagram for 'type declaration' (which is written in the heading
already)
The heading is a caption.
In typesetting, normally that is not
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.comwrote:
Am 08.01.2014 22:01, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
You can preview the result at
http://www.freepascal.org/~michael/ref/refch3.html
You might additionally mention that these type aliases also allow
different
On 10.01.2014 00:32, Constantine Yannakopoulos wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:55 AM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com
mailto:pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 08.01.2014 22:01, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
You can preview the result at
Today I found
this type definition in some FreePascal sources:
Type
Real = type Double;
I wondered
what
On 08/01/2014 18:16, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Today I found this type definition in some FreePascal sources:
TypeReal =type Double;
I wondered what the second “type” keyword means here (I have never seen
this before).
You are being rather obtuse.
Ignore the diagrams in the docs if they
On 08.01.2014 19:40, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
On 08/01/2014 18:16, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Today I found this type definition in some FreePascal sources:
TypeReal =type Double;
I wondered what the second “type” keyword means here (I have never seen
this before).
You are being rather
On 08.01.2014 19:16, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Today I found this type definition in some FreePascal sources:
TypeReal =type Double;
I wondered what the second “type” keyword means here (I have never seen
this before).
So I looked at
On 08/01/2014 20:01, Sven Barth wrote:
On 08.01.2014 19:40, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
On 08/01/2014 18:16, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Today I found this type definition in some FreePascal sources:
TypeReal =type Double;
I wondered what the second “type” keyword means here (I have never seen
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Today I found this type definition in some FreePascal sources:
TypeReal =type Double;
I wondered what the second “type” keyword means here (I have never seen this
before).
So I looked at
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
On 08/01/2014 20:01, Sven Barth wrote:
On 08.01.2014 19:40, Howard Page-Clark wrote:
On 08/01/2014 18:16, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Today I found this type definition in some FreePascal sources:
TypeReal =type Double;
I wondered what the
Am 08.01.2014 21:01, schrieb Sven Barth:
No, an alias would be
=== code begin ===
type
Real = Double;
=== code end ===
Using the type behind the = tells the compiler to declare a new
type based on the right side.
So a Double and a Real are not assignment compatible and can have
On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Am 08.01.2014 21:01, schrieb Sven Barth:
No, an alias would be
=== code begin ===
type
Real = Double;
=== code end ===
Using the type behind the = tells the compiler to declare a new type
based on the right side.
So a Double and a Real are not
Am 08.01.2014 22:11 schrieb Jürgen Hestermann juergen.hesterm...@gmx.de:
But why is it not part of the documentation?
We are all just human beings that make mistakes. Nobody is perfect and so
is the documentation.
If nobody takes care of the documentation anymore
then it should better be
On 09.01.2014 07:22, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Where can I find the documentation for my original question about
the double TYPE keyword?
This link explains it a bit:
http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/XE5/en/Type_Compatibility_and_Identity
But that's not part of the Free Pascal
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Am 2014-01-08 21:12, schrieb Sven Barth:
I don’t know whether the first 'type' is the standard type definition
entry keyword but if so it should be typed in bold font.
No, it's not the keyword, it's a reference to the syntax diagram named
type
Am 08.01.2014 22:01, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
You can preview the result at
http://www.freepascal.org/~michael/ref/refch3.html
You might additionally mention that these type aliases also allow
different operator and (AFAIK also) function overloads.
Regards,
Sven
25 matches
Mail list logo
