On 25-9-2012 10:16, michael.vancanneyt-0is9kj9s...@public.gmane.org wrote: > On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Reinier Olislagers wrote: >> I'd suggest: >> 1. adding a readme as indicated in my other mail so that users and >> developers do not fall into the same trap > > Hoho, there is no trap :-) Well, not intentional, but it sure is confusing.
>> 2. documenting similar unwritten assumptions in other relevant units as >> well. Not doing so is a great way to discourage contributors > > That is definitely not the intention. See my other mail. > > I was frankly surprised by the strong responses I got. > > Any assumptions I made were mine, and definitely not the law, I just > gave them as 'historical background', because that is how I perceived > the original question :-) Ok, that explains some of the disconnect then. I've responded to your other mail ;) Friends? ;) _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal