On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 18:31 +0200, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
> > Richard Ward schrieb:
> > In my opinion also, the
> > semantics should be changed to reflect the actual nature of the
> > construct and behavior.
>
> Agree.
I think Richard Ward actually meant the syntax, not the semantics.
T
* Free Pascal LGPL --> shortened to FPLGPL
I don't like acronyms, especially if they are more than 3 letters long.
Why not simply name it "Free Pascal Licence"?
Jürgen Hestermann.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://li
> Richard Ward schrieb:
In my opinion also, the
semantics should be changed to reflect the actual nature of the
construct and behavior.
Agree.
Again, imo, it would be better if someone who
was migrating from Delphi, found that their FPC program didn't compile
could look in the manual a
On Jun 20, 2009, at 6:00 AM, David Noon wrote:
I think it is more expressive to make the semantics clear by declaring
an inconstant constant as a variable -- because that's what it is --
This semantic issue is very confusing for beginners including people
who are migrating from a non Borlan
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said:
> I think that would be a bad name, because
> a) there is nothing specific to the FPC project about this license
> b) many other projects also use this form of licensing (just google
> for "lgpl static linking exception" without the quotes)
>
> Simply "
On 20 Jun 2009, at 16:15, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
Modified LGPL just isn't good enought, because it's not unique enough.
Modified in which way? By who?
I would like to have a name for our license, what do you think? I
suggest:
* Free Pascal LGPL --> shortened to FPLGPL
I think
Hello,
Often I need to tell anyone it's a good option to use the license from
the FPC RTL, but this license has no unique name, which leads to the
ackward need to use expressions like "the same license as the Runtime
Library from Free Pascal" or "The same license as the Lazarus
Component Library".
