On Tue, 2 Feb 2016, Serguei TARASSOV wrote:
On 02/02/2016 13:41, fpc-pascal-requ...@lists.freepascal.org wrote:
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 13:22:01 +0100
From: Jonas Maebe<jonas.ma...@elis.ugent.be>
Michael Van Canneyt wrote on Tue, 02 Feb 2016:
[evaluating all arguments to a function/intrinsic]
>I'm just trying to to put any foaming-at-the-mouth argumentation
>using this particular argument in perspective.
I think this is rather disingenuous after your own
foaming-at-the-mouth hyperbole (?) of reverting all changes and
temporarily shutting down the svn server if someone else did something
that you considered to be fundamentally wrong.
>For a correct understanding: The compiler must behave predictable at all
>times, no arguing there. But I don't think that iif() having different
>semantics than all other functions, is a problem.
Including all other functions called iif().
>It just needs to be
>documented properly. It is a non-issue for me.
It is a deal breaker for me.
Completely agreed with Jonas.
I'm afraid to stay with FPC 2.6 for the near future and support Delphi
compatibility.
Seems, the guys from GNU C are more responsible because of many
mission-critical code compiled with.
The least we can say is that the subject is controversial.
The prudent course is then to remove it from the compiler (or put it in a
branch) till emotions have calmed down and a satisfying solution was found.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
