Hi,

This is a small contribuition for Lazarus project. (In attached)

A screenshot in my IDE:

http://imagebin.org/98483

Thanks, hope you like. ;)

If you want to see this component in lazarus one day, please open an issue (feature) and add your patch.

thanks.

zeljko

You may not be aware, but the TDBEdit is a mask edit. The mask must be set in the field itself: TField.Editmask. It will be used by TDBEdit.

Michael.

Thanks zeljko, I'll do that. :)

Michael Van Canneyt wrote

You may not be aware, but the TDBEdit is a mask edit. The mask must be set in the field itself: TField.Editmask. It will be used by TDBEdit. Michael.

But this is already implemented in Lazarus? I searched here(Lazarus 0.9.29 r25654:25679M FPC 2.4.0 i386-linux-gtk 2 (beta)) and did not find.

Ola :(

I quoted from my Delphi knowledge; and indeed in FPC it is missing. (there is even a comment in dbedit.inc in the LCL :/)

I will implement it in TField. Thank you for pointing this out !

Michael.

Better, just apply that ;-):
http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=16555

Luiz

Wow, this here will help:

<http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=16555>

If I update now my Lazarus from SVN, I'll have EditMask in TField?

Em 27-05-2010 18:49, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara escreveu: [...]

Better, just apply that ;-): http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=16555 Luiz

I saw that. Thanks! :)

When it's released, to I update my Lazarus from SVN?

No. Its necessary to be applied to fpc first. Lazarus support will come only when a fpc version is released with the change.

Luiz

Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote

No. Its necessary to be applied to fpc first. Lazarus support will come only when a fpc version is released with the change.

And that would probably be a major release, not a "fixes" release. So don't get your hopes up for something soon like for FPC 2.4.2 or 2.4.4. It should probably make it for 2.6.0 only (long time from now).

Nonononono, there is a patch for this already in mantis.

Joost.

Trolling again?

Can't get my feature in the next release, so start trolling others who want another feature?

The DBMaskEdit is a change in the FCL. There are different rules for the FCL and the compiler itself.

Joost.

Joost van der Sluis wrote

Trolling again?

No and please drop the attitude!!

I was simply brining across my new found knowledge from a different mailing list. New features are not allowed in "fixes" branch.

The DBMaskEdit is a change in the FCL. There are different rules for the FCL and the compiler itself.

Double standards.

New features are not allowed in "fixes" branch.

This is not carved in stone but a good thumb rule.

Florian Klaempfl wrote

This is not carved in stone but a good thumb rule.

So what is the criteria to get a new feature in the "fixes" branch instead of having to wait months to a year-plus for the next major release? If it's unit tests you want, I can supply that - no problem.

Where did I say (on the other list) that no new features are allowed in the fixes branch? Nowhere.

You were mad that your feature didn't make it and tried to give us a bad name. Not by complaining but by bothering others that their feature would not make it because yours didn't. Without reading my mail properly.

That the one who you were answering to is using svn and not a release shows even more that your remark was irrelevent.

> The DBMaskEdit is a change in the FCL. There are different rules for the > FCL and the compiler itself. Double standards.

Trolling again? (Or does this add anything useful to the discussion, besides the point that you do not agree with us and find that we are doing things wrong?)

Joost.

On 28 May 2010 10:45, Florian Klaempfl wrote: > This is not carved in stone but a good thumb rule. So what is the criteria to get a new feature in the "fixes" branch

You've to ask the release manager about this ;)

I merge compiler features only in the rare cases that I can oversee them (mostly t_* stuff), and rely fully on Jonas/Florian/Paul's insights here.

If they want to be responsible for merging such feature and follow up any problems in a timely matter, I trust that and only set bounderies with respect to the timeframe when it is merged (just after a fixes release, so there is a maximum time to test it till the next)

Joost van der Sluis wrote

Where did I say (on the other list) that no new features are allowed in the fixes branch? Nowhere.

It's a sad day for you that I have to quote your own emails.

"Maybe not even 2.4.4, as it is really a new compiler-feature, not a bug-fix." - Joost

You were mad that your feature didn't make it and tried to give us a bad name. Not by complaining but by bothering others that their feature

No, maybe you simply did not bother to look at the patches I listed. Most are actually fixes, like I mentioned to Florian in a private email. Those patches actually fixes 3 bug reports from Mantis - only the 'implements' support was a new feature (though rather important for FPC). I'll forward that mail to the fpc-devel where this discussion should continue.

New _compiler_ feature. Just as I told you.

Joost.

Graeme Geldenhuys wrote

Double standards.

This has nothing to do with standards. I'm very glad they are a bit more careful with the compiler, and I think everyone can appreciate the reasons for this.

Henry