On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
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.
I can relate to that, being confused myself :-)
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? ;)
I have never thought otherwise :-)
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
