On Fri, 14 May 2010 16:52:30 +0200 Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 May 2010 16:41, Mattias Gaertner wrote: > > > > I can send you my 49 smaller patches. But I doubt that would help. > > Personally, I would have preferred that because it's easier to debug a > problem afterwards when things doesn't work. You have smaller commits > to work through. Having a 150K patch means I (and probably others that > didn't work on that patch) have no clue where to start looking for the > problem. Well, I doubt that the patches would help here. I rewrote some parts multiple times. > > AFAIK deprecated and label were not supported, so I did not break > > that. > > The tiOPF code I tried to document with fpdoc did NOT fail with the > 'label' or 'xxx of byte' syntax. Only after your commit did the errors > of that syntax appear. Probably because the former parser only parsed the interface. Maybe fpdoc now tries to parse the implementation too? That's not needed, is it? > That is why I split the bug report in two. The 'deprecated' issues was > always there, but the others wasn't. > > I wasn't trying to be rude and point blame (I had a wink in my earlier > reply). I'm simply stating that two syntax bugs slipped though your > testing (obviously because those syntax wasn't used in FCL. But they > are bugs because they worked before. It was not rude. I just took the opportunity to write about the stupid pre/postmodifiers introduced by Delphi. Mattias _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
