On 24/09/2013 13:13, Sven Barth wrote: > Am 24.09.2013 11:27, schrieb Reinier Olislagers: >> On 24/09/2013 11:11, Marco van de Voort wrote: >>> In our previous episode, Reinier Olislagers said: >>>>> Yes, but since the routine probably has low utilisation I choose for >>>>> structuring all conversion routines all the same. >>>> I would rather choose for maintaining backward compatiblity, the *de >>>> facto behaviour* (return 0 on invalid values) as it is quite sensible >>>> for this kind of numbers. >>> It is non-orthogonal. >> What is non-orthogonal? I'm indicating that I value backward >> compatiblity higher than breaking compatibility to match existing >> structures. I also indicate why this compatiblity is not such a bad >> decision in the first place. >> I have a bit of trouble understanding what you mean by "it's >> non-orthogonal" > Non-orthogonal means in this case that RomanToInt behaves different than > e.g. StrToInt.
Sorry, but I'd rather hear that from Marco himself. Your explanation doesn't make sense either; IMO it was sufficiently clear in the discussion that we all agree that RomanToInt's behaviour is different from many/all other conversion routines. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
