[fpc-pascal] Re: StrUtils.RomanToInt oddities

[Sven Barth]

Am 24.09.2013 13:47, schrieb Reinier Olislagers:
> On 24/09/2013 13:13, Sven Barth wrote:
>> 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.
> Sorry, but I'd rather hear that from Marco himself.
> Your explanation doesn't make sense either; IMO it was sufficiently
> clear in the discussion that we all agree that RomanToInt's behaviour is
> different from many/all other conversion routines.
You want to hear it from Marco? Here:
> Yes, but since the routine probably has low utilisation I choose for
> structuring all conversion routines all the same.
Regards,
Sven