Jump to content

David Heffernan

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    3499

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    174

Posts posted by David Heffernan

  1. Posted

    On 12/1/2023 at 6:29 AM, PeaShooter_OMO said:

    Which route would you then go if you could/wanted to re-write?

    I don't really know. There's a part of me that says C++ because I know I'll have good compilers forever. But porting would be hard. For instance, we use lots of nested functions, which don't exist in C++. Not sure how we'd handle that. I think there'd need to be a lot of refactoring of the code in Delphi first to enable a semi automated translation. 

  2. Posted

    24 minutes ago, PeaShooter_OMO said:

    I always wondered which IDE you consider to be great and which one you would migrate to if you had to re-write your company's flagship software.

    I don't care that much about the IDE. It's the compiler and the language that matters more to me. 

    • Like 8

  3. Posted

    Your specification in the original post is incomplete so it's not surprising that people don't know what you want. Your clarification is still unclear. 

     

    Until you can define precisely what you want the code to do how could you expect anyone, even yourself, to be able to write it. 

    • Like 3

  6. Posted

    2 hours ago, FreeDelphiPascal said:

    So, when are we all going to sign a petition to Embarcadero and ask for a modern Delphi that does not crash every 10 minutes

    Yeah, pretty sure that's all that's needed. Can't believe nobody thought of that before. 

    • Like 3
    • Haha 3

  8. Posted · Edited by David Heffernan

    10 minutes ago, Sherlock said:

    Delphi 12.0

    But that's not what it is. It's Delphi 12. Like last time it was Delphi 11 and then 11.1 and then 11.2. So maybe the next one after 12 will be 12.1. Or maybe it will be 13. Or maybe 14.

     

    The fact that so many people have such problems with knowing the versions is a sign that their policy is poor. I'm expecting to hear about XE12 before long.

    • Like 2
    • Haha 1

  12. Posted

    1 hour ago, balabuev said:

    It's strange to me that people here do not want to make the language more self-consistent, especially in this particular case, where not big amount of work in the compiler is required.

    None of us can do this though. Why are you posting here instead of submitting a QP request? We aren't the people you need to convince. 

  15. Posted

    2 hours ago, balabuev said:

    Yes, my fail. Should be: 

    
try
  goto L1; // Compile error, but why?
finally
end;

L1:

     

    Actually that's not where the compiler reports the error. The compiler reports the error as indicated in my post. At the label.

  16. Posted · Edited by David Heffernan

    4 hours ago, balabuev said:

    This one is interesting: 

    
try
  goto L1; // Compile error, but why?
  goto L2; // 
finally
end;

L1:
L2:

    Exit, Break and Continue work in the above case.

     

    For the sake of future readers, this example is not minimal. I can't imagine where there are two goto statements. The issue you raise needs one. Minimality is important. This is the example you should have posted:

      

    procedure Foo;
label L1;
begin
  try
    goto L1;
  finally
  end;
L1:// E2127 here
end;

     

    The other thing that is missing is what the compiler error says. Often there's information there. Why omit it. Again for future readers, it says:

     

    Quote

    [dcc32 Error] E2127 'GOTO L1' leads into or out of TRY statement, FOR-IN statement whose enumerator has destructor, or a block containing local variable

     

    • Like 1

  17. Posted

    7 hours ago, fastbike said:

    Is TMonitor the correct synchronisation structure here ?

    It's a mutex. One thread at a time through protected blocks. Is it the right structure? Maybe. But using a mutex is only going to be useful if you do it right. Do you see the code that accesses FOperationsLoaded outside the mutex. What's your rationale there? Anyway it's kinda hard to analyse your code with it spread over loads of different posts. 

    • Like 1

  25. Posted

    14 hours ago, RTollison said:

    but a few have navigated to other folders and could use the preview to see what was in the other folders/files. So this new dll is to put an end to the wandering user. not about security but prevent the wandering user.

    If this isn't about security then there's no need for the feature you are trying to implement. 

×