florian at freepascal.org
Tue Apr 5 08:24:36 CEST 2005
ml at brainwashers.org wrote:
> Quoting Florian Klaempfl <F.Klaempfl at gmx.de>:
>>ml at brainwashers.org wrote:
>>>Personaly, I stopped carring (its been a week or two now, and I still
>>>got the answer even where the problem lies)
>>Well, we try currently prepare 2.0 so the focus is currently on bug
>>fixing so nobody of the developers had time to investigate the patch
>>more deeply yet so 1-2 weeks of delay aren't that big :)
> 2.0 is being mentioned first at 25 september 2003
> (<joke>wow, that's a long "currently", and a lot
> of 1-2 weeks</joke>)? And my best guess is that interfaces are not part of the 2.0 plan (even bug
> reports and fixes I made were completely ignored, just like interfaces aren't part of the 2.0 goal).
Interfaces are part of 2.0 but mainly to be dephi compatible.
> Why maybe affirmative answer would be better?
> It would be better for me because answers wouldn't take forever. And it would be better for you
> because I wouldn't bug you. And then if you need something you take, it will be under the LGPL
> Features being developed now are:
> MI interfaces 90% (MI=multiple inheritance)
> Inclasses 15% (embedded classes)
> foreach 0% (well, we know you hate it)
It's a useless statement if used for arrays, enumerations etc. It blows up the
language for no gain. I really wonder what people would say about a foreach
which iterates through arrays in random order. I guess 90 per cent of the
programs break though it would be completely legal :)
It makes some use for containers like maps however those aren't native types in
> box-type 0% (something like variant, but simpler, better and less memory
> and some other things which are mostly done, but my best guess is that will be
pascal-off or too-
> heretic-like and used by me only.
History has shown that using incompatible solutions isn't that good. Simply
because people prefer to compile their sources with different compilers.
More information about the fpc-pascal