Am 02.03.2016 um 16:51 schrieb Maciej Izak:
2016-03-02 16:40 GMT+01:00 Steve Hildebrandt <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
This solution would leave one unable to aquire information about
non manged record fields.
So in my opinion either adding seperate information for non manged
fields or a simple renaming(making it clear what information to
expect) are preferable.
separate information can be added later, together with other rtti
additions like attributes, detailed information about fields like
field name etc. (which make more sense with mentioned rtti additions
for unmanaged record fields rtti. current information about unmanaged
fields in "managed fields array" is useless and confusing). Renaming
in typinfo module, IMO is bad idea, it breaks more compatibility.
--
Best regards,
Maciej Izak
While I can agree that the current way is confusing and renaming might
not be the best solution, the aditional Information is not useless.
I think it would be bad if changes reduce the amount of obtainable
information,
since it leaves people unable to fix their programs if they are reliant
on, in this case rtti for unmanaged record fields.
Steve.
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
