[fpc-pascal] "is"

[ml at brainwashers.org]

Quoting Michael Van Canneyt <michael.vancanneyt at wisa.be>:

Like first if it wasn't your last paragraph, I wouldn't even bother to answer.
You're obviously taking this thing as pissing contest. (you can spare me about
using words like this on mailing list, you last paragraph is worth it, and I
don't care if I get banned)

> 
> 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.
> 

Finally, answer to something I asked. Even I said it would be better. It was
clearly specified. Moving off. I'll probably notify you or not (will have to
decide if it is better to make add-on patches for fpc as my own project or
trying to go trough this again. Probably the first will win, I appreciate my
nerves and time)

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

Now this bugs me, read my last part of my reply

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

Now this bugs me too, read my last part of my reply

> 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 ?
> 

Do you need a brief 10 page history, or will you belive me on my word that
migrating from language to language defined by my needs is the reason why I
can't stuck with pascal. Believe me, I would love to (pascal is still my
favourite language).

Obviously you have very limited usage needs for programming.

> 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.
> 

You're not suggesting, you're saying it. And it is not worth to try to move your
conviction. (it can't be done with pissing context people, they always win, even
if they loose)

> 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 ??
> 

You're too much stuck in pascal. Get out to the world, you might find answer. By
the way, when did pascal had MI??? And delphi implementation is the only one
that hasn't got MI.

> 
> 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.
> 

Doesn't look like it. Read last part of my reply

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

Was not taking it personal. But next paragraph made me take it.

> 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...
> 

This paragraph made me angry. I provided at least 3 examples (one of them was a
complete copy paste and compile) and 1 that was completely wrong. I explained at
least 4 times where and how.

I provided both patches complete. refcount (those 3 examples and 4 explanations)
and "is" patch. Where it was only said that it does too much. Too much what??? I
asked the same question at least 5 times. No answer. If your way of doing is
"your software doesn't work, I won't tell you how and where, correct it so I'll
like it" then your actions and this last paragraph goes with your principles of
work. If you deny that I send it, you can browse trough mail history

But if you try to say that this is not the way you do things around here then go
trough mail history.

All I got was a bunch of whining and yapping with my all time favourite "I'm
busy with my day time job" (I think I got that from about 3 of you). Well, I
guess you haven't been busy enough not answer the question I never asked. Never
even considered that instead of yapping about daytime job you could answer the
question?

I think I was more than enough tolerant not to burst like this before.


goodbye
ml

> Michael.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  fpc-pascal at lists.freepascal.org
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
> 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through Horde-Toaster (http://qmailtoaster.clikka.com/)