In our previous episode, Michael Schnell said: > Anyway "forking" fpc in such a way seems catastrophic.
We are not forking anything. We only accept the directive, and we don't have a FM in the first place to create a compatible fork. > Regarding strings, there were several discussions to completely kill the > "index" syntax for a strings. As with an unknown encoding, the index > does not make much sense, and, with certain frameworks (such as CIL) > strings are unalterable and need to be recreated when modified (which > seems to make sense performance-wise in some cases). IMHO, killing the > index syntax would be more acceptable than modifying the meaning of a > "visible" index into a string under the hood. IMHO a substituting bad with worse is not a good reason. Java/CIL needs this because its strings are immutable, and character access is expensive. We don't share, nor plan to share that trait. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
