Sign in Join

Live chat for Free Pascal, Lazarus, Delphi and every Pascal programmer.

Mailing lists / fpc-devel / 2010-05

Re: Interface delegation fix: backport to FPC 2.4.2 ...? (fwd)

2 messages · 2 people ·

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.

Unknown author

Forwarded here, so everyone can see it. I mistakenly replied to Marco alone.

Michael.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 09:39:29 +0200 (CEST)
From: Marco van de Voort
To: Michael Van Canneyt
Cc: Marco van de Voort
Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Interface delegation fix: backport to FPC 2.4.2 ...?

In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:

It's not because you don't see a need, that others don't have it; there is no point in discussing that, we will never agree on that. Just like I don't discuss religion with people.

Well, there's your precedent problem, right there. Those are exactly the arguments that are used for every language extension or deep system change.

Together with "it won't hurt that much", and "it really is only this time" and "most people won't even notice".

That is an impossibility, since then we cannot use it in the FCL/LCL, which is one of the requirements:

Well, if you are going to push this through pigheaded, there is nothing more to discuss, isn't it?

So please propose something else, something you concede is not the optimal solution, but which you are prepared to accept, lacking the optimal solution.

I do not see one. If one puts you one cm of a wall and says not to question that position, but to find a solution, you simply don't have much working space.

Reply by email

Michael Van Canneyt
to Unknown author
Show quoted text 11 lines
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said: > > It's not because you don't see a need, that others don't have it; > there is no point in discussing that, we will never agree on that. > Just like I don't discuss religion with people. Well, there's your precedent problem, right there. Those are exactly the arguments that are used for every language extension or deep system change. Together with "it won't hurt that much", and "it really is only this time" and "most people won't even notice".

For each individual proposal, we always make up the balance of pros and cons.

You know this, I know this. I preferred a large Unix unit, you preferred it split in several. You got your way. Rightly so, you did most - if not all- of the work. That's how it works.

Show quoted text 5 lines
> That is an impossibility, since then we cannot use it in the FCL/LCL, which > is one of the requirements: Well, if you are going to push this through pigheaded, there is nothing more to discuss, isn't it?

There is no need for terms like 'pigheaded'.

Show quoted text 8 lines
> So please propose something else, something you concede is not the > optimal solution, but which you are prepared to accept, lacking the > optimal solution. I do not see one. If one puts you one cm of a wall and says not to question that position, but to find a solution, you simply don't have much working space.

I am open to alternatives. Like I said: if you want to start with a clean slate: I'm all for it, and prepared to discuss, design and code. And document in the end.

But I also see a need to change the classes unit. So it will be changed, because several others see the same need, and I am prepared to do the work and maintain it. Just like it has been for 15 years of open source collaboration in the FPC team.

I give you the option of proposing something alternative - granted, within very strict limits, but you can't always get want you want.

Even Mick Jagger knows that.

Michael.

Reply by email