[Lazarus] TMask revisited

[José Mejuto]

El 19/10/2021 a las 16:32, Bart via lazarus escribió:

> Thanks for explaining that.
> Sounds to me like you should not enable both of them, unless you want
> something to match 'a'..'f' or '+' or '-' [a-f+\-] ?

Hello,

There are IMHO two front lines, one is the "replace" of TMask in 
internal LCL functions, exposed or not to the user, and in this case all 
options that allow mimic the old behaviour should be disabled. The other 
one is the TMask itself which can be "replaced" with same settings as 
internal LCL functions and/or a TMaskExtended which can use all the 
syntax options.

> Lots of documentation to do.

In the mask world I think that many mask samples are better than a lot 
of text trying to explain what a set, a range, etc, is. Short text with 
3, 4, ... 10 samples.

> The eMaskOpcodeOptionalChar enum name is not very self-explanatory,
> maybe we should come up with another name (better now than in half a
> year).

For me, a non English speaker, the name is fine, but maybe 
"eMaskOpcodeCharInSet" ?

I'm using "Char" instead CodePoint on purpose.

> And maybe a constant that has all opcodes except the ones that enable ranges.

And the one that escape characters, but current TMask allows ranges and 
sets which is confusing me about the function requirements.

--