Mattias Gaertner wrote:
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/
:-) Hence my original query about whether it could be reimplemented as a
base class plus inheritance for specialisation, i.e. try to replace
messy ad-hoc stuff using facilities which the underlying language has
gained since its initial implementation.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
