[fpc-devel] But what /is/ a string?

[Mark Morgan Lloyd]

Mattias Gaertner wrote:

>>> FPC is closer to 20 stringtypes or types with autoconversions.
>>
>> Thinking hypothetical here... what if FPC 3.0 did just that... Rethink 
>> the whole 20 string types mess, and implement only one string type for 
>> 3.0 onwards. How would developers feel about that? What would the 
>> advantages be to developers and FPC maintainers? What would the 
>> disadvantages be (other than it will probably break existing code - 
>> which the Unicode support will probably do too).
> 
> http://xkcd.com/927/

:-) Hence my original query about whether it could be reimplemented as a 
base class plus inheritance for specialisation, i.e. try to replace 
messy ad-hoc stuff using facilities which the underlying language has 
gained since its initial implementation.

-- 
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]