[fpc-pascal] Generic type declaration example versus manual.

Marco van de Voort marcov at stack.nl
Sun Nov 22 17:49:28 CET 2009

> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Marco van de Voort <marcov at stack.nl> wrote:

> > Implementing something once or twice.
> Okay, but let's take these issues one by one rather than grouping them
> together. Is that more reasonable. Blocking off discussion about some
> feature after it has been started or implemented seems short sighted.

It is not blocked off. I'm absolutely sure that a patch which implements
Delphi compatible generics will be accepted.

> As I've said before, FPC is going down the route of being incompatible
> with Delphi. I think it makes sense to resolve compatibility issues
> rather than fight against resolving them.

By all means, go ahead.
> > Every developer is master of his own time. And it is an hobby for all of us.
> > And I don't think i have to explain you that implementing something twice is
> > not fun, specially not if your only motivation is avoiding being called
> > "childish".
> I didn't call anyone childish. I was pointing out that some arguments
> are childish.

You seem to bypass the main argument time after time again: who is going to
pay for Codegear's non compliance?

You seem to assume the FPC devels will, and morally should, pick up that bill.
(which can be expressed as developer time), and with the highest priority.

Which is simply false. 

To my best knowledge all FPC compatibility statements (intention or not)
never went further than Delphi 7 compability plus maybe selected features
from later versions. Everything else is an assumption.

More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list