>> Really ? >> I wonder what kind of code you write to make this 'super buggy' statement. >> >> I myself write lots of code, and never encountered an issue. >> But then, I normally don't use dubious constructs to begin with.
> In fact, we already have several bug reports related to overloading/generics. > > See > https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=27690 > https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=30776 > https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=28824 Some more non-generic-related ones, just ones I can remember right now: https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35580 https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=31215 (don't mind the symptom, the cause is a typeconv issue) https://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=35573 What bugs me most is how one small fix (such as r42042) breaks other things that should be orthogonal but are not. All because there are at least four partially recursive resolution methods following slightly different rules, all for the same question "given the passed argument defs, what is the path of least conversion to something of matching name in the current symtable?". But yeah, that's just core having a different opinion of code duplication than I do. -- Regards, Martok _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
