[fpc-pascal] TThread.Queue vs TThread.Synchronize

[Sven Barth]

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
>     call?
>
>     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:
>
>     Regards,
>     Sven
>
>
> 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().

Regards,
Sven