Re: pascal equivalent of python "sleep"

On 2008-05-08, Scott Moore <samiam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Pascal has a standard, the ISO 7185 standard. Today there
>>> are basically two working dialects of Pascal, Borland's
>>> Delphi, and ISO 7185. Virtually all compilers available
>>> today obey one or the other, and the compiler GPC implements
>>> both.
>> 
>> (brr, that's a bold statement. IMHO it doesn't even implement Turbo
Pascal
>> complete. It has some Delphi 2 features, that is about it.)
>
> I'll bow to your expertise here. The last time I talked to the
> GPC group, they were going hog wild for TP compatability.

To my knowledge they still don't sup****t a TP (or Macpascal UCSD-like)
compatible string, and require rewrites to schemata or using helper
functions.

Being able to rewrite TP code is not "tp compatible".

I'm also not entirely sure if their isolation of units/modules is 100% and
qualification with unit names. But it is a lot longer ago that I asked
that,
contrary to the TP/ucsd string stuff that turns up in the macpascal list
regularly.

(I followed GPC till a few years ago, a friend kept part of a TP/FPC app
working on Solaris/Sparc, what FPC didn't do)

Afaik the delphi sup****t is the most basic minimal "class" concept and
some
routines added to the runtime. Note that Delphi compability is pretty
hard,
since the minimal subset to compile an existing Delphi codebase is fairly
big. 

It is hard to say what the state is, since the maillist doesn't have much
updates
over new development and the site is from 2005.

>> FPC<->Borland is quite OK, even visual code can be converted easily.
Most of
>> the ****ting effort is slowly "good habits" with respect to
multi-platform.
>> 
>> The crossplatform compability is something different. 
>
> Which goes back to the library issue that Mr. Mertes is on about.

Yes. But that is with any compiler system that is popular. The hordes
don't value
compability, they just heap code together.

>> MS is cleaning up, and it is not that the other vendors don't have
>> own libs and constructs.
>> 
>> MS gets a lot of flak because it is simply the default platform, and
the
>> hordes of programmers on it start programs without any crossplatform
>> consideration, not even with a minimal modularization or layering to
ease
>> it.
>> 
>> I'm not a MS fanboy, but I recognize the situation because when ****ting
>> code from Delphi to FPC one often faces the same problem.
>
> My biggest issue with Microsoft is that they wrote the Windows header
> files using their own custom C extentions, and in many cases they didn't
> even need to do that, it was just gratuitous use of their custom
> features. That is why IP Pascal's chtoph program has a /microsoft flag.

Hmm, I actually are quite fond of MS headers, because they are generally
very clean (their macro usage is simpler and less convoluted than e.g.
glibc
headers).

Which extensions exactly? guid and interface related ? I'm biassed there
:-)