On 19 May 2010 23:02, Graeme Geldenhuys <graemeg.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19/05/2010, Henry Vermaak wrote: >> >> not qualified to add to this discussion, but I feel we can reach a >> good solution without feeling the need to hit each other upside the >> head. > > Well, seeing that Marco and Florian are very quick to call people > clueless and bash them in public - I thought if they can deal it out, > they should be able to take some themselves. But yes this is getting > nowhere - hence I suggestion to Michael to simply apply his changes > and be done with it.
I can't find where Marco was rude, care to point it out? I think Florian's abruptness was justified, but it's better not to feed the trolls. The point I'm trying to make is that if you have a strong enough technical basis, you will convince people. Like Linus says, talk is cheap, show me the code. > Marco might know the RTL, but so do others. I also know class design > and design patterns very well - both are my passion in programming. So > I believe I know what I am talking about as well when I say the > Observer is very useful in the base classes. Maybe some of you don't > know what Observer is or how it works, maybe some of you don't even > know what Design Patterns are - this doesn't make them less useful. I don't doubt for a second that you know a lot about design patterns, but I know that Marco also does, so this is not why you are disagreeing. The point was that it opens the door for a lot of other (perhaps questionable) stuff to weasel its way into the base classes on the basis of "but you allowed the observer stuff!". Which is a justified objection, imo. Anyway, I do hope that there is a feasible to implement this, because the observer pattern is very powerful. Henry _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
