Am 25.02.2016 um 01:59 schrieb Mr Bee:
> Pada Rabu, 24 Februari 2016 18:40, Marco van de Voort <mar...@stack.nl>
> menulis:
>
>
>
>> In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
>> > > (remember recent discussion about IfThen pseudo-function).
>> >
>> > More relevant to your situation, I remember discussion about adding an
>> > identifier to WITH to use as an explicit shortcut, i.e. something like
>> >
>> > with foo= bar do
>> > foo.someField := ...
>>
>> Not relevant since the With code in this case must remain delphi compatible.
>>
>
> Sometimes I just don't understand the policy of FPC devs about Delphi
> compatibility.
I guess in this case it means: the code must be still compilable with delphi so
any FPC extension
does not help.
> In some cases,
> they said FPC isn't a slave of Delphi, FPC should have better goal than
> Delphi, there's the Delphi
> way and there's the FPC way, breaking old codes is consequence of a change,
> bla bla bla….
>
> But in some other times, like now in this case, the 'with' case, they said
> that it must be Delphi
> compatible, don't break old codes, keep the compatibility, bla bla bla…. Like
> when they responded to
> my proposal to set {$J-} as default because that's how a const is suppose to
> be. And it's the
> default now on Delphi as well.
>
> Maybe FPC devs should give us the "rule" or policy about what kind of change
> that is acceptable and
> not acceptable. So when we think of something new we could look at the rule
> and if it's doesn't
> comply then we don't need to bother to propose.
"FPC devs" is only the people who do the work. Their/Our opinion e.g. regarding
Delphi compatibility
is as diverse as here on the mailing list. But as we prefer to spent our time
in coding than to make
a useless point in a mailing list, we find normally an agreement. So as Sven
said, everything is
decided case by case.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
