2016-03-02 23:38 GMT+01:00 Sven Barth <[email protected]>: > With your collection it's more that I feel uneasy with your > implementation. In general I'm in favor of the addition... But this topic > is definitely different. > > Maybe you need more help from my side?
> How can you know that no one is using this? And only because it's called > ManagedFields (or so) that doesn't mean that users haven't discovered that > it contains all fields and use it as such. > Also any valid code should work with the additional fields as well since > it will have to check the type kinds anyway. > Changing this would break *any* code that relies on the fields being in > there, while only that code that does an Assert(False) or something alike > will fail with the additional ones. > So again: we won't change this. > conclusion: I can live with that. I will not implement any of my code that will break current rtti table record solution -,- . Eh... thanks for patience in discussion with me! -- Best regards, Maciej Izak
_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - [email protected] http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
