[fpc-devel] is that intended? private type section in classes versus visibility

Graeme Geldenhuys graemeg.lists at gmail.com
Mon Jul 26 23:23:23 CEST 2010

On 26 July 2010 22:57, Florian Klämpfl <florian at freepascal.org> wrote:
> What makes you think so? Which compiler patches did we reject so far?

Lets take some examples in the last few months alone. I had code for
the RTL. Iterators come to mind - denied. Then there was a patch for a
more cross-platform help type definition - denied. Then there was the
discussion about adding Observer support to all container classes in
the RTL. Refused again, but at least Michael saw the light and said he
will add it to the RTL regardless (and time permitting). I can list a
few more... and then some people still wonder why I rant about FPC

A developer can only handle so much rejects before they move on to
greener pastures. That makes me wonder why I am even bothering with
the namespaces suggestion - I should already know the outcome based on
past experience. [graeme sulking and crawling back under is rock]


More information about the fpc-devel mailing list