[fpc-pascal] Bls: Bug in FPC 3.0.0 (was: Bug in FPC 3.0.0?)

[Florian Klämpfl]

Am 25.02.2016 um 01:59 schrieb Mr Bee:
> Pada Rabu, 24 Februari 2016 18:40, Marco van de Voort <marcov at stack.nl> menulis:
> 
> 
> 
>> In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
>> > > (remember recent discussion about IfThen pseudo-function).
>> >
>> > More relevant to your situation, I remember discussion about adding an
>> > identifier to WITH to use as an explicit shortcut, i.e. something like
>> >
>> > with foo= bar do
>> >    foo.someField := ...
>> 
>> Not relevant since the With code in this case must remain delphi compatible.
>> 
> 
> Sometimes I just don't understand the policy of FPC devs about Delphi compatibility. 

I guess in this case it means: the code must be still compilable with delphi so any FPC extension
does not help.

> In some cases,
> they said FPC isn't a slave of Delphi, FPC should have better goal than Delphi, there's the Delphi
> way and there's the FPC way, breaking old codes is consequence of a change, bla bla bla…. 
> 
> But in some other times, like now in this case, the 'with' case, they said that it must be Delphi
> compatible, don't break old codes, keep the compatibility, bla bla bla…. Like when they responded to
> my proposal to set {$J-} as default because that's how a const is suppose to be. And it's the
> default now on Delphi as well.
> 
> Maybe FPC devs should give us the "rule" or policy about what kind of change that is acceptable and
> not acceptable. So when we think of something new we could look at the rule and if it's doesn't
> comply then we don't need to bother to propose.

"FPC devs" is only the people who do the work. Their/Our opinion e.g. regarding Delphi compatibility
is as diverse as here on the mailing list. But as we prefer to spent our time in coding than to make
a useless point in a mailing list, we find normally an agreement. So as Sven said, everything is
decided case by case.