On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Lukas Gebauer wrote:
> > That isn't. I was more hinting at the TSystemTime example. Sysutils is > > platform independant, and Windows is dependant. > > Ok, enhance this my example: What is different between TSystemTme > structure in sysutils and in windows? Windows structure have only one > additional field 'DayOfWeak'! > > Why platform independent implementation in FPC sysutils not have this > field? Simply add this field to FPC sysutils and then you have two > compatible structures. What is platform depended on 'DayOfWeek'? Why > is not here this field? > > Core of this problems is not platform independency. Or not? In this particular example, the field was simply forgotton, and we'll add it. This is not a problem. > For example, dynlibs. Same functions is in Borland sysutils. (for > both, delphi and Kylix). But in FPC it is in separate unit, and one > function have different name. (I mean UnloadLibrary instead > FreeLibrary) Simple: Our unit was implemented first, and the Borland unit appeared later ! > > Why is impossible put into your sysutils same functons as in Borland > and this new functions will internally call dynlibs unit? If some > platform not support dynlibs, then simply not add this functions into > sysutils on this platform. 1. We will add them in the main branch, just as you say, they will call the implementation in dynlibs, and will be Borland compatible. 2. They will raise an exception if not implemented on a specific platform. Otherwise users will still need IFDEFS anyway. Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
