Adding to Michalis Kamburelis argument…
Keeping backwards compatibility [BC] is great. However, thinking about forwards
compatibility [FC] is also necessary. Keeping BC too tight will also hold back
our forward thinking. We will be stucked in the past forever. No matter how
hard we keep the BC, we eventually will break it anyway. If we want FPC to be
known as modern programming language, just let go off the past. Unless, we are
happy to be still associated with the old 70's Pascal.
So, we must plan the appropriate timing when we should break BC and let FC
taking over. I think FPC v.3.2 would be appropriate enough. Besides, what's the
release notes for? right? :)
–Mr Bee
Pada Selasa, 21 Juni 2016 16:30, Sven Barth <pascaldra...@googlemail.com>
menulis:
Am 21.06.2016 08:58 schrieb "Mr Bee" <pak.le...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > Maybe a little bit offtopic, but I have a question regarding the compiler
> >directives: is there a way to tell Lazarus to use these directives in every
> >new unit?
>
> I even expect a bit further. These {$MODE OBJFPC}, {$H+}, and {$J-}
> directives should be the *default* directives for every new FPC
> programs/units. We're now using Free Pascal compiler on 2016. Why do we need
> to explicitly declare Free Pascal mode in a Free Pascal program? In 21st
> century, our string should not be limited to 255 chars anymore. And what the
> hell is "writable constant"? It's contradictio in terminis. :)We have a
> strong focus on backwards compatibility, so the default mode stays "fpc" and
> changing a modes' default settings would also affect backwards
> compatibility.Regards,
Sven
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
