ml at brainwashers.org
ml at brainwashers.org
Tue Apr 5 17:36:59 CEST 2005
Quoting Florian Klaempfl <florian at freepascal.org>:
> ml at brainwashers.org wrote:
> > Quoting Florian Klaempfl <F.Klaempfl at gmx.de>:
> >>ml at brainwashers.org wrote:
> >>>Personaly, I stopped carring (its been a week or two now, and I still
> >>>got the answer even where the problem lies)
> >>Well, we try currently prepare 2.0 so the focus is currently on bug
> >>fixing so nobody of the developers had time to investigate the patch
> >>more deeply yet so 1-2 weeks of delay aren't that big :)
> > 2.0 is being mentioned first at 25 september 2003
> > (<joke>wow, that's a long "currently", and a lot
> > of 1-2 weeks</joke>)? And my best guess is that interfaces are not part of
> the 2.0 plan (even bug
> > reports and fixes I made were completely ignored, just like interfaces
> aren't part of the 2.0 goal).
> Interfaces are part of 2.0 but mainly to be dephi compatible.
You mean that 20% of functionality of delphi interfaces that you currently support?
> > Why maybe affirmative answer would be better?
> > It would be better for me because answers wouldn't take forever. And it
> would be better for you
> > because I wouldn't bug you. And then if you need something you take, it
> will be under the LGPL
> > license.
> > Features being developed now are:
> > MI interfaces 90% (MI=multiple inheritance)
> > Inclasses 15% (embedded classes)
> > foreach 0% (well, we know you hate it)
> It's a useless statement if used for arrays, enumerations etc. It blows up
> language for no gain. I really wonder what people would say about a foreach
> which iterates through arrays in random order. I guess 90 per cent of the
> programs break though it would be completely legal :)
Why did I know that even though I specified you hate it (and with this I was
meaning that it will never get to fpc tree), that this will be the only thing
mentioned in answer
> It makes some use for containers like maps however those aren't native types
Yeah, just like MI interfaces aren't doable (I think that you said
"impossible"), it was about 40-50 lines adding and about 10 lines of change
(currently I'm still testing to be 100%, but yes they are done). And inclasses
are now at 30%.
Containers? Hello, that's why I'm implementing box type. Everything is doable,
you know the array or set, classes in other languages just specify interface
IEnumerable, and they support for each. As I said I don't care if any of my
changes gets into fpc tree. If you like it, you can have it, as free as in beer,
that's why I asked if I should remove my work to other place and just notify you
when feature is 100% and available for your testing whether you like it or not.
> > box-type 0% (something like variant, but simpler, better and less memory
> > and some other things which are mostly done, but my best guess is that will
> pascal-off or too-
> > heretic-like and used by me only.
> History has shown that using incompatible solutions isn't that good. Simply
> because people prefer to compile their sources with different compilers.
So delphi supports operators? and few other objfpc things?
<LOL>bwaaaahhhhh</LOL>. but to get serious
Somehow I sound like a bad guy here, that's trying to force his opinion.
Isn't the main reason I try to help here (and I specified it now for at 5 times)
that I don't wanna break anything to you with my patches. Patches will be done.
Patches will be downloadable (if they don't get in fpc tree). I would be more or
less 90% done already if I wouldn't go trough this yapping and waiting.
btw. Don't you think that I would do things under my name if I would wish any
kind of gratitude or fame? Nope, I would just like to contribute (as thanks for
your work), but not only to you but to whole community. I always did, and I
> fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal at lists.freepascal.org
This mail sent through Horde-Toaster (http://qmailtoaster.clikka.com/)
More information about the fpc-pascal