[fpc-pascal] Re: StrUtils.RomanToInt oddities

[Reinier Olislagers]

On 24/09/2013 14:11, Sven Barth wrote:
> 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:
<snip earlier quote>

Depends on what he meant by "it" and "non-orthogonal", doesn't it?
I had trouble believing Marco thought just repeating his point about the
function not fitting in with the rest of the conversion functions would
be any use - especially because we both agreed about that point.

Now it seems Marco cannot appreciate that I was discussing weighing
various arguments pro and con changing the function, and was just
stating and maintaining a black and white position that looks extremely
odd to me ("backward compatibility is irrelevant").
That's why I asked him what he meant.

All in all, this *is* really getting useless. I'll leave this thread for
what it is. I think everything that could usefully have been said has
already been said.