[fpc-pascal]Calling intr from Windows

[Andreas K. Foerster]

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
runerror.
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.

really?

> > 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

-- 
Tschuess
	Andreas