Am 24.09.2013 13:47, schrieb Reinier Olislagers:
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.
You want to hear it from Marco? Here:
Yes, but since the routine probably has low utilisation I choose for
structuring all conversion routines all the same.
Regards,
Sven
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
