[fpc-pascal] Re: StrUtils.RomanToInt oddities

[Sven Barth]

Am 24.09.2013 11:27, schrieb 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"
Non-orthogonal means in this case that RomanToInt behaves different than 
e.g. StrToInt.

Regards,
Sven