On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Hans-Peter Diettrich <drdiettri...@aol.com> wrote: > I see absolutely no reason why the LCL should reside in a package of a > different name, and a package named LCL refers to something else.
I must say that I it seams to me that the inverse order would make more sense: The LCL package containing forms, comctrls, etc, and depending on a package called LCLBase which has the widgetset interface units for carbon, gtk, etc. But I don't know why the current dependency direction was choosen, so I don't know if it is really required or not. > Once again the core developers deliberately break compatibility, for nothing > but lazyness, and to hide a stupid decision, made before :-( Please control your language. -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus