[fpc-devel] is that intended? private type section in classes versus visibility
fpc at mfriebe.de
Sun Jul 25 20:22:59 CEST 2010
On 25/07/2010 19:15, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> On 25 July 2010 19:28, Martin wrote:
>> And the exact same can be said for longer unit names...
> And with correct language support, we wouldn't need to make such ugly
> unit names.
Yes, but that wasn't the original point of the discussion:
Those unitnames avoid conflicts, in the same way than namespaces do =>
the make the overall identifier of the unit longer.
no namespace is no longer about avoiding/reducing conflicts => it is
about making it better looking (better defined by whom?)
More information about the fpc-devel