Am 09.02.19 um 00:41 schrieb J. Gareth Moreton:
I'll be straight here. Exactly what should I even be looking at and
working on? Being self-guided is evidently not cutting it because
recently, everything I see and think has potential or could use
improvement has been rejected or dismissed out
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 6:33 PM Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
> This is not intentional. It can happen we don't see bugs.
Of course this can happen, it happens on the lazarus side as well.
> And I recall distinctly saying several times that you can mail directly if
> you see no-one is reacting.
Yo
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Bart wrote:
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 9:35 AM J. Gareth Moreton
wrote:
I guess I can get a bit impatient,
Reaction time on ptaches in the fpc part of the bugtracker is rather
long (especially when compared to the lazarus part of the bugtracker),
I find that discouraging a
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 9:35 AM J. Gareth Moreton
wrote:
> I guess I can get a bit impatient,
Reaction time on ptaches in the fpc part of the bugtracker is rather
long (especially when compared to the lazarus part of the bugtracker),
I find that discouraging as well.
I have had patches (simple on
will also slow down compilation time. Not sure
fpc core team will accept that kind improvement.
Optimized code for speed most likely became less
readable and less maintainable. It's misfortune of
optimization.
- Reply to message -
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] I'll be straight
Date: 20
Well, at least we're having a good civil conversation about it! As long
as we can talk and discuss things, then there's no harm, and hopefully
someone like me who is over-enthusiastic at times can still be useful!
I suppose loc[low(loc)] isn't necessarily bad and is guaranteed to be
correct - j
On 09/02/19 08:33, J. Gareth Moreton wrote:
In the last patch that Jonas almost immediately closed, the speed
savings were inconclusive because the number of cycles saved is probably
only a few dozen, but I would argue it makes the code a bit more
reasonable too because it replaces things like
Thanks Michael,
In the last patch that Jonas almost immediately closed, the speed savings
were inconclusive because the number of cycles saved is probably only a few
dozen, but I would argue it makes the code a bit more reasonable too
because it replaces things like loc[low(loc)] with loc[0] and
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, J. Gareth Moreton wrote:
I'll be straight here. Exactly what should I even be looking at and
working on? Being self-guided is evidently not cutting it because
recently, everything I see and think has potential or could use improvement
has been rejected or dismissed out of
I'll be straight here. Exactly what should I even be looking at and
working on? Being self-guided is evidently not cutting it because
recently, everything I see and think has potential or could use improvement
has been rejected or dismissed out of hand because it damages
maintainability, is deem
10 matches
Mail list logo
