On Tue, November 8, 2011 09:37, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > 2011/11/8 Tomas Hajny : >> >> Examples? > > I can list them all, but I'm not going to waist my time on them again. > Search the mailing list or Mantis. > > But to humour you, here is just one of many examples: THelpEvent in > the RTL. I proposed a patch to change it to be more in line with FPC's > goals [being a cross-platform compiler, so requires cross-platform > solutions]. The change was declined because THelpEvent is a direct > copy of Delphi's equivalent, and even worse, is very Windows specific > in its signature. Yes, it's a small and stupid example, but there are > many more like this. Delphi-compatibility seems to trump everything > else (as Martin said).
This is a nice example of my reason for asking. What you list here is not a new feature but change to something what was created in order to provide Delphi compatibility in the first place. Extending such stuff should be possible (and has been done many times), changing it by breaking the compatibility is not necessarily such a good idea. On the other hand, I don't think that new features are being rejected because they may add something not available in Delphi (FPC already provides features not available in Delphi and there is no reason why more of them shouldn't be added - if they are reasonable and there are people willing to implement and maintain them. Tomas _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
