[fpc-pascal] TThread.Queue vs TThread.Synchronize
pascaldragon at googlemail.com
Mon Feb 23 20:39:57 CET 2015
On 23.02.2015 20:29, silvioprog wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Philippe Lévi <Philippe at quarta.com.br
> <mailto:Philippe at quarta.com.br>> wrote:
> may be I do not catch it well ... problem with my english understan
> ... may be. "we'll get" ... you mean some day it should be possible
> to program it? .... correct?
> you mean it will be possible to use a pointer to local function in a
> or I misunderstand ...
> De: fpc-pascal-bounces at lists.freepascal.org
> <mailto:fpc-pascal-bounces at lists.freepascal.org>
> <fpc-pascal-bounces at lists.freepascal.org
> <mailto:fpc-pascal-bounces at lists.freepascal.org>> em nome de Sven
> Barth <pascaldragon at googlemail.com <mailto:pascaldragon at googlemail.com>>
> Enviado: segunda-feira, 23 de fevereiro de 2015 16:17
> Para: fpc-pascal at lists.freepascal.org
> <mailto:fpc-pascal at lists.freepascal.org>
> Assunto: Re: [fpc-pascal] TThread.Queue vs TThread.Synchronize
> On 23.02.2015 19:41, Philippe Lévi wrote:
> > I "thought" it was not possible to use local procedure address as
> parameter like in queue( @SyncOnPrint);
> > as Clecio showed ...
> Please read the following part of my message again:
> > For FPC modes and those people that dislike the syntax of
> anonymous functions (and yes, I can understand those people ) I hope
> that we'll get the following variation to work as well:
> Oops, sorry. Just confusion on translation.
> you mean it will be possible to use a pointer to local function in a call? ²
> (some switch to enable this feature?)
See the mail I just sent to the list. In short: yes, but not exactly as
I presented in my example with TThread.Queue().
More information about the fpc-pascal