[fpc-devel] Re: Class field reordering

[Martin Schreiber]

On Sunday 22 July 2012 11:28:22 Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2012, Martin Schreiber wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 July 2012 10:52:33 Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >>> "Numbers", not count. I want to know which bugs are worked around by
> >>> crackers.
> >>
> >> That's easy: 0 bugs.
> >
> > Sorry, there where bugs in the past and there probably will be in the
> > future.
>
> There are always bugs. We fix those as soon as we can.
>
> Florian is talking about bugs you fix with cracker classes.
>
Me too.

> >> Martin needs the crackers for some mse* features.
> >
> > 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.
>
> That's because you don't just ask for changes.
> You ask for your own solutions to be implemented in FPC.
>
I do not ask for my own solutions, I ask to move private FPC class fields and 
methods of base classes which are used in different toolkits to protected in 
order to make them more flexible without changing any functionality and 
because the current workaround with cracker classes may be not possible 
anymore in future because of upcoming FPC optimisations.

[...]

> Cooperation works in 2 directions. I'm willing to think about solutions.
> You must give detailed descriptions of what you think is a problem,
> and be prepared to accept solutions that are maybe not 100% to your liking.
>
> If you are not prepared to accept such solutions, then I cannot help you.
>
Sorry Michael, I do not trust that the effort is worth the outcome for me.

Martin