On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:49:05 +0100 Graeme Geldenhuys <gra...@geldenhuys.co.uk> wrote:
> On 26/08/12 13:40, Marco van de Voort wrote: > > I doubt it. You maybe could (and probably would) in a new language, and have > > one single stringtype. > > > > FPC is closer to 20 stringtypes or types with autoconversions. > > > Thinking hypothetical here... what if FPC 3.0 did just that... Rethink > the whole 20 string types mess, and implement only one string type for > 3.0 onwards. How would developers feel about that? What would the > advantages be to developers and FPC maintainers? What would the > disadvantages be (other than it will probably break existing code - > which the Unicode support will probably do too). http://xkcd.com/927/ Mattias _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
