[fpc-devel] Interface delegation fix: backport to FPC 2.4.2 ...?

[Henry Vermaak]

On 19 May 2010 23:02, Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/05/2010, Henry Vermaak wrote:
>>
>>  not qualified to add to this discussion, but I feel we can reach a
>>  good solution without feeling the need to hit each other upside the
>>  head.
>
> Well, seeing that Marco and Florian are very quick to call people
> clueless and bash them in public - I thought if they can deal it out,
> they should be able to take some themselves. But yes this is getting
> nowhere - hence I suggestion to Michael to simply apply his changes
> and be done with it.

I can't find where Marco was rude, care to point it out?  I think
Florian's abruptness was justified, but it's better not to feed the
trolls.  The point I'm trying to make is that if you have a strong
enough technical basis, you will convince people.  Like Linus says,
talk is cheap, show me the code.

> Marco might know the RTL, but so do others. I also know class design
> and design patterns very well - both are my passion in programming. So
> I believe I know what I am talking about as well when I say the
> Observer is very useful in the base classes. Maybe some of you don't
> know what Observer is or how it works, maybe some of you don't even
> know what Design Patterns are - this doesn't make them less useful.

I don't doubt for a second that you know a lot about design patterns,
but I know that Marco also does, so this is not why you are
disagreeing.  The point was that it opens the door for a lot of other
(perhaps questionable) stuff to weasel its way into the base classes
on the basis of "but you allowed the observer stuff!".  Which is a
justified objection, imo.

Anyway, I do hope that there is a feasible to implement this, because
the observer pattern is very powerful.

Henry