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"
>>> Moreover I don't think that first attempts should fixate interfaces >>> and behaviour forever. >> It's quite strange though that Delphi compatibility is quite insistently >> adhered to (BTW a good decision IMO). > > Because that has an use. The internal FPC compatability, specially in the more > fringe areas like this, service no use than fattening maillist archives IMHO. If you don't see a use for backward compatibility for existing code... let's just say I'll stop fattening maillist archives right now. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
