[fpc-devel] Re: Class field reordering

[Ivanko B]

Asking for changes to make base classes more flexible is not bothering
us. It's a regular part of software development, and in the best case
every user of FPC comes out ahead in the end thanks to the resulting
changes.

 Hacking around the type system that results in certain optimizations
becoming impossible is annoying, however. And I don't really see a
best case outcome in this case, regardless of what is done in the end.
==============================
Hmm..it sounds like "Relaxing access rights is a usual deal and why
shouldn't we do it again to resolve the contradictions - especially if
it turns out to be the only relevant ?" :)


2012/7/22, Jonas Maebe <jonas.maebe at elis.ugent.be>:
>
> On 22 Jul 2012, at 11:09, Martin Schreiber wrote:
>
>> Which otherwise can't be implemented without changes in FPC or FCL.
>> I don't dare to ask for changes so cracker classes were a workaround
>> without
>> to bother FPC team.
>
> Asking for changes to make base classes more flexible is not bothering us.
> It's a regular part of software development, and in the best case every user
> of FPC comes out ahead in the end thanks to the resulting changes.
>
> Hacking around the type system that results in certain optimizations
> becoming impossible is annoying, however. And I don't really see a best case
> outcome in this case, regardless of what is done in the end.
>
>
> Jonas
>
> PS: just to make it clear, I haven't committed this optimization
> yet._______________________________________________
> fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
>