On 23.12.2012 01:50, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 22/12/12 16:43, Marco van de Voort wrote:
I think you have a wrong idea on what the core list contains.
LOL. And how is anybody supposed to know what goes on - it is a PRIVATE
mailing list.
I don't think direction on unicode (or even general) came up since the last
unicode discussions on fpc-devel/pascal.
OK, so once again it is proven that Unicode is just not "sexy" enough
for the core team, so it will stay stagnant for a few more years. That's
unless a member ignores all discussions and does his own thing [or gets
paid for the job]. As Florian likes to says so often, whoever implements
it decides. Unfortunately that courtesy is not extended to non-members,
because what good is a patch [of such magnitude and effort] with no
chance of ever being committed. So we are at the mercy of the FPC gods.
Did you know that my addition of target NativeNT was published as patch
to the bug tracker? Did you know that I wrote patches for the cppclass
feature to get it a bit more working than before? It was only the class
helpers where I got access to a personal branch in SVN and only the
generics when I got access to trunk.
You need to show the others that they can trust you and that you mean no
harm and then they'll treat you accordingly.
The best example is this: I had problems commenting on closed/resolved
bugs which were assigned to me, so Florian simply made me from
"developer" to "manager". It's all about trust....
Well, let me just say that the idea of two RTL's is rather ridiculous
too!! You guys keep bitching about not having enough developers, so how
on earth do you think you are going to be able to maintain developing
two RTL's, patching too RTL's when bugs are reported, inform the public
to remember to mention which RTL they are using when reporting bugs,
keeps those two RTL's in sync over time etc. Yeah, it seams you guys are
sometimes not to knowledgeable either. All you are going to do is create
more work for yourselves. But hey, who are we to state the obvious.
The two RTLs isn't as difficult as you think:
=== System.System.pp begin ===
{$define USE_UNICODE}
{$include system.pp}
=== System.System.pp end ===
=== system.pp begin ===
// where the mode is set:
{$mode objfpc}
{$ifdef USE_UNICODE}
{$modeswitch UNICODESTRINGS}
{$endif}
=== system.pp end ===
The same for the other units.
Then one just needs to pay attention whether USE_UNICODE is defined or
not inside those units and write the code accordingly. I don't say it's
a pencake, but it isn't "ridiculous" and the only approach that is
really viable for us as - as you said - we only have so much developers.
Regards,
Sven
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
