[fpc-pascal]Calling intr from Windows
Andreas K. Foerster
Andreas at AKFoerster.de
Mon Mar 18 16:31:04 CET 2002
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 12:15:52PM +0100, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> > But I meant functions like Sound,
> I was only talking about procedures functinos which do nothing at all, not
> those that aren't fully functional (unless it's not obvious they aren't
> fully functional). OTOH, for you it may be OK that sound() doesn't take
> the frequency into account under Win32, but we get regular bugreports
> about that. Then again, maing it call runerror wouldn't pchange very much
> about that probably :)
It was just an example!
Perhaps not a good one.
But it was you, who wrote: "we shouldn't have any function in the
RTL that can silently fail" and you suggested to let them produce a
All I wanted to say is, that there are empty functions, which are
not so essential - there it would do more harm, when they produce a
runerror. They /should/ just "fail" - but please not "silently".
> > where the programs could eventually run without them.
> I see your point.
> > But simply missing sound for example is better than having to look for
> > the problem.
> A lot if people will also start looking for a problem if their sound
> doesn't work correct, so I don't think that's a valid argument.
But then they have at least a running program.
Okay, stripped down, what I wanted to say is:
1. don't implement unneccessary runerrors
2. give warnings instead
More information about the fpc-pascal