2016-05-11 15:07 GMT+02:00 Maciej Izak <hnb.c...@gmail.com>: > > 2016-05-11 14:51 GMT+02:00 Sven Barth <pascaldra...@googlemail.com>: > >> And I stand by that decision. Generics are a rather frickle feature and I >> want to know of critical failures as early as possible (and yes, I've made >> use of that already numerous times!), thus I prefer fgl to be part of the >> cycling and unlike fcl-stl or these Delphi compatible ones the fgl unit is >> comparatively small. >> > And that is double standard. I prefer Generics.* to be part of the > compiler cycle. It perform better test for critical failures in my compiler > code and for more advanced generics code. It is not only for Delphi > compatibility it performs infrastructure to *any* generics library like > Spring4D etc. > > Sorry Sven but keeping fgl in RTL is ridiculous (!). There is no technical > reason for that. Only your personal convenience. You can use normal tests > suite like others. > > Or maybe Marco reply is untrue? >
To be clear: part with Generics.* is just irony. Like below proposition: Can I add module SmartPointers.pp and few other modules as test to the RTL? I have few features (rather frickle features) and I want to know of critical failures as early as possible. Looks like we have new *best practice* for new language features and new condition to add the module to RTL :) ... Sven, seriously? I'm a confused and disgusted. -- Best regards, Maciej Izak
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
