On Friday 18 January 2008 12:35, Bee wrote: > > Well, the statements so far went like "this sub.sub.unit stuff is > > just .NET crap, we won't implement any of those". ;) > > I don't like that kind of attitude either. .Net is not crap as a > whole, it does have some good features and ability.
Yeah, right. Nothing of that is new. It just wasn't hyped and backed by a big $ company before. > If some of them > are really good, then why not implement some of them in FPC too? *If*, yes. Don't get me wrong, I am not against this syntax (on the contrary, I'm even a strong supporter for easily extensible units), but I am against the (so far) suggested semantics. Namespaces are too flat and simply not powerful enough to justify the implementation and maintenance effort. Vinzent. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
