[fpc-pascal] "is"

Michael Van Canneyt michael.vancanneyt at wisa.be
Tue Apr 5 17:42:01 CEST 2005

> Containers? Hello, that's why I'm implementing box type. Everything is doable,
> you know the array or set, classes in other languages just specify interface
> IEnumerable, and they support for each. As I said I don't care if any of my
> changes gets into fpc tree. If you like it, you can have it, as free as in beer,
> that's why I asked if I should remove my work to other place and just notify you
> when feature is 100% and available for your testing whether you like it or not.

I think it is best that you finish your work, and then provide a
complete patch. But please split the patches in separate chunks, so we
can clearly distinguish bug-fixes from features.

>>> box-type 0% (something like variant, but simpler, better and less memory
>> consuming)
>>> 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.
> So delphi supports operators? and few other objfpc things?
> <LOL>bwaaaahhhhh</LOL>. but to get serious
> Somehow I sound like a bad guy here, that's trying to force his opinion.

No, but it seems to me that you fail to provide good arguments to make us
accept the general usefullness of your patches.

Usually, when the core developers are not convinced of the usefullness
of a feature, it is not implemented or included.

I have not yet seen any argument from your side to convince me that your
patches are a useful contribution to the pascal language. That your
patches reduce your code base by a factor 4, seems to me an argument
that maybe your design is flawed and not that pascal is flawed. Pascal
works for me as it is. It works even very well, and I haven't seen a
situation where it failed me or I would need any of the features you suggest.
So why would it not be so for you ?

Take care: I am not suggesting your currently design is actually flawed;
But you have not convinced me that your patches are an improvement of
the pascal language.

For example;
MI for interfaces for me is strange (to say the least) because
interfaces were introduced to avoid the mess of MI in the first
place. So why on earth would you want to introduce it ??

> Isn't the main reason I try to help here (and I specified it now for at 5 times)
> that I don't wanna break anything to you with my patches. Patches will be done.
> Patches will be downloadable (if they don't get in fpc tree). I would be more or
> less 90% done already if I wouldn't go trough this yapping and waiting.
> btw. Don't you think that I would do things under my name if I would wish any
> kind of gratitude or fame? Nope, I would just like to contribute (as thanks for
> your work), but not only to you but to whole community. I always did, and I
> always will.

Any contribution is appreciated, but we must be convinced of it's
usefullness if it is a feature. If you (or anyone else) fail to
make us see that, the patch won't get included. This is a simple fact.

You should not take this personal or whatever, but that is how things
work for FPC.

As for the 'is' patch: It is obviously not a simple issue or it would
already have been applied. Provide a complete patch, we'll study it,
but we cannot guarantee that this will be done fast.
The more involved a patch is, the longer it takes to review it,
and to estimate possible consequences...


More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list