[fpc-pascal] Re: Get all caller adresses of a given function/procedure before executing

[Jorge Aldo G. de F. Junior]

"And a
disadvantage is may the longer time to find a solution."

Thats not the only disadvantage. Reinventing the wheel usually means
you get something less correct and less researched. Its simple, 1000
eyes looking for a bug into a standard library will spot much more
problems than your lone eye looking for a bug into your own
implementation.

2012/8/15  <microcode at zoho.com>:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:20:34AM +0200, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
>> On 15-8-2012 10:08, Rainer Stratmann wrote:
>> > Am Wednesday 15 August 2012 09:59:00 schrieb Lukasz Sokol:
>> >> On 15/08/2012 08:33, Rainer Stratmann wrote:
>> >>> Am Wednesday 15 August 2012 03:52:00 schrieb waldo kitty:
>> >>>> the loading code simply
>> >>>> chooses the proper po file and then loads the strings into an array or
>> >>>> whatever using the same variables which are used everywhere no matter
>> >>>> what language their contents are written in...
>> >>>
>> >>> Do you need a separate pascal identifier for each snippet?
>> >>>
>> >>>> i must still be missing something :?
>> >>
>> >> No with (dx)gettext you don't need pascal identifiers for every string.
>> >> And the translating function is _():string;
>> >> So all you do is writeln(_('snippet1'));, to follow your convention.
>> >>
>> >> So it more or less uses the same idea as you are trying to replicate.
>> >>
>> > Yes, that is possible as I understand it so far.
>> > I did not know (dx)gettext before so replication is may not the right word.
>> Yes, it is. Replication is doing the same thing twice, regardless of the
>> reasons/knowledge behind that fact.
>
> I'm not sure about that since replication isn't really a word, although it
> has crept into the English language. I look at it from a results POV rather
> from an action POV. Replication is about producing copies of the same
> result. You can do a similar action multiple times (duplication) and produce
> a dissimilar result. That wouldn't be replicating anything, it would just be
> a duplication of effort.
>
> >From a database POV (which is how I know what little I know about
> replication since I was involved in a project to do this in the early 1990s
> before the whole db replication thing got so commonplace) the word
> replication means not that anything was done more than once, but that the
> one result was propagated to multiple places. So it seems to me replication
> is about multiple result instances, not multiple action instances.
>
> --
>         _                             _
> ._ _ _ <_> ___  _ _  ___  ___  ___  _| | ___
> | ' ' || |/ | '| '_>/ . \/ | '/ . \/ . |/ ._>
> |_|_|_||_|\_|_.|_|  \___/\_|_.\___/\___|\___.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal at lists.freepascal.org
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal