<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 29 Mar 2013, at 10:53, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Monaco; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: monospace; ">Am 2013-03-29 10:35, schrieb Sven Barth:<br><blockquote type="cite">We value backwards compatiblity very high and this is part of it, no matter whether these c-like operators are considered good or bad...<br></blockquote>But that's not the point here. The problem has nothing to do with backward compatibility.</span></span></blockquote></div><br><div>It's about backward compatibility with existing FPC-compilable code that makes use of this feature, and that would no longer be compilable by FPC if the feature were removed.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Jonas</div></body></html>