On 11/15/2013 01:03 AM, Sieghard wrote:
> And then, it's a little bit funny to read a statement against "source
> code optimization" from a C programmer, when it is often an expressed
> concern by such to keep their source code as optimized for their
> compiler as possible...
:-) This seems a
On 11/14/2013 09:49 PM, Sieghard wrote:
>
>> For debugging you can define a lower Optimization level.
> You can d that, of course. Often, then, the reason for debugging goes away.
Optimization levels are only allowed to affect execution speed and code
size.
If the result of a function is diff
On 11/15/2013 01:14 AM, Sieghard wrote:
> I don't recall there was any mention that there should not be any
> local variables within a procedure or function.
>>> "You could also decide to make "pos" take a return variable
parameter "
a var parameter needs a variable to be given in the call.
On 11/14/2013 09:28 PM, Sieghard wrote:
> It might not be very neccessary if these types aren't compatible among each
> other. Range checking has to be done only on coercion then, i.e. when
> assigning a value cast from a - any - different type.
I understand that Martin is (IMHO) correctly assuming
On 11/14/2013 08:12 AM, Martin Schreiber wrote:
> I don't like it.
> Or with reserved words:
> "
> type
> boolty = max: 8; //bool8
> cardty = 0 to max: 8;//card8
> intty = smin to smax: 8; //int8
> charty = #max: 8;//char8
> floatty = -.max to .max: 64;
On Thursday 14 November 2013 21:49:29 Sieghard wrote:
> > I see. Eliminating the horrible hiding ambiguity by use of an alias does
> > make sense.
>
> Not for me. For my part, I dislike the Oberon style "with" at least just
> as much as you seem to dislike the Pascal style.
>
How do you suggest on
On Friday 15 November 2013 07:33:08 Martin Schreiber wrote:
> or
> "
> type
> boolty = :8;//bool8
> cardty = :+8; //card8
> intty = :-8;//int8
> charty = :#8; //char8
> floatty = :.64; //flo64
> recordty
> b: :8; //bool8
> c: :+8; //card8
> i: :-8; //int8
> ch: :#8; /
On Friday 15 November 2013 09:37:29 Michael Schnell wrote:
> On 11/14/2013 08:12 AM, Martin Schreiber wrote:
> > I don't like it.
> > Or with reserved words:
> > "
> > type
> > boolty = max: 8; //bool8
> > cardty = 0 to max: 8;//card8
> > intty = smin to smax: 8; //int
On Friday 15 November 2013 09:33:32 Michael Schnell wrote:
> On 11/14/2013 09:28 PM, Sieghard wrote:
> > It might not be very neccessary if these types aren't compatible among
> > each other. Range checking has to be done only on coercion then, i.e.
> > when assigning a value cast from a - any - di
On 11/15/2013 10:06 AM, Martin Schreiber wrote:
>
> How do you suggest one should solve the Pascal "with" problem that it is
> possible that an additional field in the "with" record can hide already used
> names in existing "with" statements with that record?
>
+1
IMHO there is no decent way to ha
On 11/15/2013 10:21 AM, Martin Schreiber wrote:
>
> That is not enough, keywords for boolean, character and float types are
> necessary too.
>
Boolean: of course it needs to be possible to define 1 Bit booleans, so
using the same syntax does make sense
But I doubt that providing bitcount-restrict
On Friday 15 November 2013 13:42:02 Michael Schnell wrote:
> On 11/15/2013 10:06 AM, Martin Schreiber wrote:
> > How do you suggest one should solve the Pascal "with" problem that it is
> > possible that an additional field in the "with" record can hide already
> > used names in existing "with" sta
On Friday 15 November 2013 13:46:48 Michael Schnell wrote:
> On 11/15/2013 10:21 AM, Martin Schreiber wrote:
> > That is not enough, keywords for boolean, character and float types are
> > necessary too.
>
> Boolean: of course it needs to be possible to define 1 Bit booleans, so
> using the same sy
On 11/15/2013 02:00 PM, Martin Schreiber wrote:
> Why? Do you never work with variant records?
No.
> There and with records
> generally "with" is a good aid to structure the code.
>
Anyway: sorry for not being clear enough. I meant the "with" keyword for
denoting the record the fields denoted aft
On 11/15/2013 02:08 PM, Martin Schreiber wrote:
>
> How do you define char8/char16/char32 float32/float64 then if you don't want
> to be forced to write the range?
Neither a bit limitation nor a range makes sense for floats.
Bits: you would need to specify a bit count as well for the Mantissa and
Compile time range checks already have a benefit.
==
Sure. Anyaway specifing (or assuming) bitlength is range check as well
:) Also if range is 2pwrN then overflow check may rely on CPU hardware
(checking its Overflow flag with a single "JNO" ASM ibstruction).
-
Hi,
Because code should always look the same I think ';' should become a mandatory
statement terminator instead a separator as in Pascal.
In order to be consequent ';' in procedure and function headers should be
replaced by ',' -> ',' = separator, ';' = terminator. Therfore using a single
typena
Hallo Martin,
Du schriebst am Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:18:59 +0100:
> > could you do this if the values depend on some unspecified type?
> > Use something like "max (boolty)" or "min (l)"?
> >
> No, max (or another keyword) denotes "maximum of the value with the given
> bit count".
Fine. _What_ bit c
Hallo Michael,
Du schriebst am Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:33:32 +0100:
> > It might not be very neccessary if these types aren't compatible among
^^^
> I understand that Martin is (IMHO) correctly assuming that range
> restricted numerica
Hallo Martin,
Du schriebst am Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:06:53 +0100:
> How do you suggest one should solve the Pascal "with" problem that it is
> possible that an additional field in the "with" record can hide already
> used names in existing "with" statements with that record?
Why bother? Who's resp
Hallo Michael,
Du schriebst am Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:06:52 +0100:
[A whole lot about compiler optimizations]
> Decent C programmers do take advantage of this to make their source code
> more readable.
And yet, there are - probabely still just as many - C programmers that
don't trust their compile
Hallo Martin,
Du schriebst am Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:33:08 +0100:
> type
> boolty = :8;//bool8
> cardty = :+8; //card8
> intty = :-8;//int8
> charty = :#8; //char8
What's the difference between "#" and "+"? Why do you think it should be
neccessary?
What's the difference between "boo
Hallo Michael,
Du schriebst am Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:10:37 +0100:
> On 11/14/2013 09:49 PM, Sieghard wrote:
> >
> >> For debugging you can define a lower Optimization level.
> > You can d that, of course. Often, then, the reason for debugging goes
> > away.
>
> Optimization levels are only all
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Martin Schreiber wrote:
> Hi,
> Because code should always look the same I think ';' should become a mandatory
> statement terminator instead a separator as in Pascal.
> In order to be consequent ';' in procedure and function headers should be
> replaced by ',' ->
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:52 PM, Sieghard wrote:
> Hallo Marcos,
>
> Du schriebst am Wed, 13 Nov 2013 22:26:19 -0200:
>
>> >> The compiler should provide a way to assign a directory to a
>> >> 'Namespace' named by programmer, eg: Synapse.
>> >
>> > Why a "directory"? Why not a specific file? Or, w
Hallo Michael,
> But IMHO it is better to avoid the "with" keyword altogether and use a
> pointer
Says the C programmer and creates the next buffer overflow failure.
You _do_ know that pointer errors make for most of the scurity problems of
software overall, relegating any other errors to dista
Hallo Michael,
Du schriebst am Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:18:53 +0100:
> > I don't recall there was any mention that there should not be any
> > local variables within a procedure or function.
>
> >>> "You could also decide to make "pos" take a return variable
> parameter "
> a var parameter nee
Hallo Martin,
Du schriebst am Fri, 15 Nov 2013 16:24:04 +0100:
> Because code should always look the same I think ';' should become a
> mandatory statement terminator instead a separator as in Pascal.
> In order to be consequent ';' in procedure and function headers should be
> replaced by ',' -
On Friday 15 November 2013 22:42:29 Marcos Douglas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Martin Schreiber
wrote:
>
> Well, I think not need to change this but if you will change anyway, I
> vote in #1 option:
> "
> procedure test(para: int32, parb: int8, parc: boolean);
> "
> or:
> "
> proced
On Friday 15 November 2013 22:08:03 Sieghard wrote:
> Hallo Martin,
>
> Du schriebst am Fri, 15 Nov 2013 10:06:53 +0100:
> > How do you suggest one should solve the Pascal "with" problem that it is
> > possible that an additional field in the "with" record can hide already
> > used names in existin
On Friday 15 November 2013 22:58:02 Marcos Douglas wrote:
> >> My idea is to use a "item" using a "virtual name" instead of the real
> >> name. Just it.
> >
> > I.e., use compiler macros.
>
> I do not know how Martin will implement this. I guess he will chose
> the simple way... if is compiler mac
31 matches
Mail list logo
