[fpc-pascal] Re: StrUtils.RomanToInt oddities

[Reinier Olislagers]

On 24/09/2013 11:11, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> In our previous episode, Reinier Olislagers said:
>>>
>>> Yes, but since the routine probably has low utilisation I choose for
>>> structuring all conversion routines all the same.
>> I would rather choose for maintaining backward compatiblity, the *de
>> facto behaviour* (return 0 on invalid values) as it is quite sensible
>> for this kind of numbers.
> 
> It is non-orthogonal.
What is non-orthogonal? I'm indicating that I value backward
compatiblity higher than breaking compatibility to match existing
structures. I also indicate why this compatiblity is not such a bad
decision in the first place.
I have a bit of trouble understanding what you mean by "it's non-orthogonal"

>>> Moreover I don't think that first attempts should fixate interfaces
>>> and behaviour forever.
>> It's quite strange though that Delphi compatibility is quite insistently
>> adhered to (BTW a good decision IMO).
> 
> Because that has an use. The internal FPC compatability, specially in the more
> fringe areas like this, service no use than fattening maillist archives IMHO.

If you don't see a use for backward compatibility for existing code...
let's just say I'll stop fattening maillist archives right now.