[fpc-devel] is that intended? private type section in classes versus visibility
klenin at gmail.com
Thu Aug 12 18:03:56 CEST 2010
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:57, Joost van der Sluis <joost at cnoc.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 10:41 +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>> Op 2010-07-30 17:58, Joost van der Sluis het geskryf:
>> > I'm affraid that when the discussion is over, no-one is willing or able
>> > to develop what has been concluded from the discussion.
>> I can only speak for myself. My workflow is as follows...
>> * I see a gap (missing feature) in FPC, Lazarus IDE etc that I would like
>> * If it's something only I will use, I implement it locally.
>> * If it's something I think others could find useful too, I discuss
>> the idea on the mailing list.
>> * If the discussion went well and the idea is still viable, I
>> add it to my todo list.
>> Just because I discussed something, doesn't mean I will implement it
>> immediately. I have a large todo list, and items that make it onto my todo
>> list, DO get implemented (in my own time).
> This approach will lead to a lot of wasted time of the core developers.
> They have to discuss all kinds of ideas, but none of them get
> All developers can think of more new features then they can code. What's
> the use of discussing all these instead of implementing them? If the
> core developers would start discussing all their ideas, and only
> implement them if they have time left, the development will stop.
> And please, don't say that we can just skip the discussion. If the
> core-team would do that the discussion is far less useful, because they
> can still have some reasons to reject the patch, which were not
Sorry to interject, but the above is a total self-contradiction.
You have said that new features should not be discussed,
and in the very next paragraph -- that the discussion is mandatory.
Alexander S. Klenin
More information about the fpc-devel