[fpc-devel] Forwarded message about FPC status

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Fri, 21 Dec 2012, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:

> On 21/12/12 10:15, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>>
>> It would be good to keep those facts in mind before ranting.
>
> I was simply bringing some of those questions (which I had too) to
> light. Unicode has been "under development" for many years, and has come
> to a halt - with no final decisions being made. This is very frustrating
> for those using FPC. And even if we wanted to contribute in that regard,
> how could we, if the FPC team itself doesn't know what it wants.

It does.

We know what to do. What we lack, is time.

Status currently:

- Inoussa has made a native unicode string manager. A large effort.
   There were some issues with licensing, namely the unicode.org files are under license.
   We tried to get these resolved, but there was never an answer.
   This took time.

- There was waiting for the merge of the JavaVM branch to trunk.
   It contains several parts needed to get the codepage aware string working fully
   (notably the ability to specify what the 'string' keyword actually means)

All that is left to do is make the unicode string manager part of RTL, 
and create the unicode-string RTL. This is a non-trivial task, which 
takes time and needs to be worked on preferably in one fell swoop.

Do not underestimate this. 
The RTL in trunk will probably be highly instable during that period.

After that there will be 2 RTLs:
1. The classical RTL, compatible with what you have now.
2. The unicode-string RTL which will use the namespaces of Delphi.

There is no other way to implement it without breaking backwards 
compatibility and a reasonable amount of keeping up with Delphi.

(and at the same time not have 4 RTLs: unicode/not unicode vs. namespaces/no namespaces)

> I would also like to point out that I am well aware that FPC is a "part
> time project" for you guys. I never demanded anything with my original
> post, simply asking what the progress was.

I understand. What made me react is the original rant in your forwarded mail.

I'm fed up of being treated like a stubborn bastard, opposed to change.

No, we are not opposed to change.

But

Yes, we have our own goals.

A reasonable amount of Delphi compatibility happens to be one of them.

That may not matter to Martin, but it does to us. So compromise will 
be needed, and any proposed change is always viewed in the light of 
our own goals.

People that want to help with dynamically loadable packages, are always welcome. 
But the subject is NOT easy. Any solution will have to work on ALL platforms.

In particular, your contributions in any area you can help with, were and are valued.

Michael.