Re: pascal equivalent of python "sleep"

On 2008-05-09, Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> 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".
>
> If you want to take random TP code and just compile it, than this
> is unlikely to give desired effect -- you need to "rewrite" code.

I don't mind that, but I expect that to be in the un****table aspects like
16-bitisms and dosisms, not in the basic language sup****t like strings.

> But this is not much different than what happens with other
> languages (like C).

I do not understand this part. Which basic language features are not
sup****ted by newer compilers?

> In my experience relatively small changes were enough to get code
working
> with GPC, so from my point of view GPC is "compatible enough".  OTOH I
do
> not claim that GPC is "100% tp compatible" -- there are known
differences
> and for some folks they can matter a lot.

The situation is clear now. That's all what counts. I already hinted
already
on a little gap in the info from GPC. Could you give an update what is
happening there? 

I see some newer sets of OS X patches, anything else going
on? More Delphi compat meanwhile?

>> 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 belive that you mention old, solved problem -- starting form February
> 2005 GPC properly mangles names in object files so that clashes are
> impossible.

Clear. I knew it might be old, which is why I also annotated that my
opinion
was possibly old.