[fpc-pascal] Re: SDFDataset users!?

[michael.vancanneyt at wisa.be]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Reinier Olislagers wrote:
>>> That is indeed another approach that doesn't require specs nor docs.
>>> Unfortunately only available to those that have the keys to kingdom :)
>>
>> Well, I think that trying to let TSDFDataset conform to certain "SDF"
>> specs is trying to do some unjustified backfitting.
>
> If conforming to the format that is specified in all existing evidence
> is wrong but conforming to some format that is never mentioned at all is
> right, I give up.
>
> IMO this is no way to run any serious development effort: don't expect
> people to read minds about what was intended if that is not documented,
> *especially* in cases like this where any knowledgeable person's obvious
> conclusion is the one you don't want them to make.
>
> Also, first accepting patches that explicitly aim for sdf/delimitedtext
> compatibility (bug 17285,22213) and then stating the opposite is an
> excellent incentive for me to drop everything that's sdfdataset related.
>
>> IMHO, it should do fixed format and CSV as indicated by the RFC I posted.
>> All the rest is nice, but not required from my perspective.
> It's not required anymore from my perspective either. I just wanted to
> fix sdfdataset so that it does what it says on the tin.
>
> I'd suggest:
> 1. adding a readme as indicated in my other mail so that users and
> developers do not fall into the same trap

Hoho, there is no trap :-)

> 2. documenting similar unwritten assumptions in other relevant units as
> well. Not doing so is a great way to discourage contributors

That is definitely not the intention. See my other mail.

I was frankly surprised by the strong responses I got.

Any assumptions I made were mine, and definitely not the law, 
I just gave them as 'historical background', because that is how I perceived
the original question :-)

Michael.