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

Joost van der Sluis joost at cnoc.nl
Tue Jul 27 13:54:19 CEST 2010

On Mon, 2010-07-26 at 23:23 +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> 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
> sometimes.

About the observer support. If I got it right, it wasn't your code but
Michael's code form some years back. And the idea is not shot down, it's
just still under discussion. Just to see if we can come to a better
solution. These processes are just slow. That's because there are too
many ideas and too little people really writing code, as Florian
mentioned before.

In general I think that if you have a new idea _and are willing to
implement it yourself_, you can discuss it first. Then try to code some
parts, discuss some more etc.etc. Just like Hans-Peter Diettrich is
doing right now.

If you need a new feature and you can code it yourself. Go ahead and
code. (You can always ask questions or discuss things here)
If you don't have time to implement something or don't have the skills,
you could ask here and see if some developer is interested, but if
that's not the case, let it rest. 


More information about the fpc-devel mailing list