[fpc-devel] An extension of fpc language: the BASED construct
ozznixon at gmail.com
Tue Dec 26 14:54:57 CET 2017
I implemented INTEGER as 32bit, but, if FPC makes it 16bit only, I will go
make the change right now. My end-users all know *DO NOT USE INTEGER* it's
even in the license agreement. "It is only there for make code compatible
w/ Delphi and FPC." I am still spending all my spare time to get MPC's
tutorial site up to par with FPC - as I promote MPC as FPC's Script Engine.
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Ozz Nixon <ozznixon at gmail.com> wrote:
> I like the concept, I would like to ask that we do not support INTEGER as
> a type, and be more specific by limiting to SHORTINT, SMALLINT, LONGINT,
> INT64. That way code snippets are not confusing when you implement 16bit
> INT logic on a 32bit INT environment. Because I do a lot of documentation
> for n00bs in Pascal - the interchangeable INTEGER is probably one of
> Borland's biggest mistakes with the grammar! I would love to see FPC make
> the statement that the type INTEGER is 16bit only - deal with people
> freaking out for a year or two, and move the language forward. Even the
> INTEGER example here is assuming 16bit - which would be incorrect on 32bit
> platforms in specific $MODE. (may have picked wrong wording, however, I
> think everyone see's the point).
> Other than that, if FPC adds this, I will add it to Modern Pascal, so at
> least the two products are supporting "BASED".
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd <
> markMLl.fpc-devel at telemetry.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 26/12/17 12:45, Giuliano Colla wrote:
>> /In short the BASED construct makes the C-style dereferencing operator
>>> unnecessary, by moving dereferencing from code to declaration.
>>> In fpc this translates into code looking like this, in this trivial
>>> I: BYTE;
>>> I1: INTEGER;
>>> ItemPtr: Pointer;
>>> Item: BYTE BASED ItemPtr;
>>> IntegerItem: INTEGER BASED ItemPtr;
>>> ItemPtr := @I;
>>> Item := $41;
>>> ItemPtr := @I1;
>>> IntegerItem := -32767;
>>> This code will load the BYTE value $41 into the variable I, and the
>>> INTEGER value -32767 into the variable I1.
>> What does gdb (and possibly other debuggers) make of this? Is it really
>> appropriate to declare Item as a variable, when it's really more akin to a
>> Mark Morgan Lloyd
>> markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
>> [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or
>> fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the fpc-devel