> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Marco van de Voort wrote: > > > > On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote: > > > I don't see what is difficult about Florians proposition. > > > On the contrary, it is the simplest possible solution, > > > and quite elegant in my eyes. > > > > To be honest, I flabbergasted that the two of you agreed on such a runtime > > construct. It goes IMHO against Pascal principles. > > Why ? > In your opinion, we must get rid of Array of Const, Variants as well, > as well as RTTI ? They all serve the same purpose.
Those are explicitely meant as layer over existing compiletime systems to handle exceptions where that is not possible. (respectively normal parameter arrays, normal typed vars and pointer based method execution) Here we are talking about adding runtime construct without typed alternative. > No-one will be forced to use the new type, so... No one is forced to use FPC, but that is also an open door. We both know that this is a pretty crucial decision, since the only alternative is handcoding using pointers. > > That's one of the problems. Having to check and insert code for a Tiburon > > solution. (that simply will expect UTF-16). The least it should do is have a > > way to flag a routine (e.g. by directive/ Tiburon mode) to only accept UTF16 > > and insert that call itself. > > Let's first wait to see what Codegear comes up with, and then worry about > compatibility. Codegear has an UTF16 type, for .NET compability. See also http://blogs.codegear.com/abauer/2008/01/28/38853 > In my opinion we'll have to write exactly 0 lines of code > for this compatibility, with the solution of Florian. Why don't you point out what I misunderstood above? If I only have a UTF16 routine with a parameter of type "unicodestring" (like T. has), how do I make sure that it only gets passed UTF-16 system without code changes? _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
