[fpc-devel] is that intended? private type section in classes versus visibility
fpc at mfriebe.de
Sun Jul 25 20:25:15 CEST 2010
On 25/07/2010 19:22, Martin wrote:
> 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?)
Having joined the discussion, and said all that => I don't oppose nor
propose the feature. (No one is forced to use it, so it's presence would
not affect me)
I simple have said and do say, that it does not solve the original issue
of this discussion.
More information about the fpc-devel