[fpc-devel] is that intended? private type section in classes versus visibility
graemeg.lists at gmail.com
Mon Jul 26 22:15:35 CEST 2010
On 26 July 2010 18:30, Marco van de Voort <marcov at stack.nl> wrote:
> If your idea was really so great, and this was really a solution, why don't
> you simply describe it?
Yeah, yeah, we all know you have a terrible time maintaining FPC. Most
people can maintain legacy software, and still see chance for adding
and improving it.
[sorry, could not resist]
Picking longer names for units will also only take you so far, then
you will start getting conflicts with those too, then what? I already
changed fpGUI's classes to what I thought would be "safe", and look...
three years later I see FPC use similar prefixed class names. That
idea lasted long - with a saving grace that the unit names differed.
Just offering negative comments and shooting down ideas, do not help
this or any other discussion. If you give negative comments, try back
it up with an additional suggestion or two. That would be a lot more
helpful to this discussion and allow us to more easily find a solution
that fit most.
More information about the fpc-devel