On Sat, 11 Jan 2014, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
Am 11.01.2014 19:58, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
Why this inconsistency?
I don't necessarily consider this inconsistent.
Why not?
Do you mean syntax diagrams don't need any logic?
In their headers ? No. In the content ? Yes.
If the diagrams stay like this they are too confusing to be of any use.
That is your opinion, to which you are of course entitled.
Feel free to make suggestions for improvements. If I consider the
suggestions good, I will certainly incorporate them.
How kind you are...
Now if that is not arrogant...
That is not arrogant. I am the author of the documentation.
So it is entirely my decision what goes in it and what not.
So I'm just stating a fact.
You seem to imply that I am demanding something for myself.
But I only report these documentation problems for potential new users
because I think that Pascal should be used by more people
while you seem to not care about them.
Well, you seem to think that you represent 'all users' which is 'arrogant' imho.
I think we just differ in opinion on what consitutes a good diagram.
So, it is my opinion against yours.
Your problem with the captions of the diagram I do not consider to be a
general problem of the diagrams, but I think it is more you personally who
cannot accept the form of the diagrams. Hence, I will not change that aspect.
But as I said: if I agree with one of your opinions, I will certainly take it
to heart.
What is more: I have already done so. As a result of your remarks I have changed
the type diagram, and I added a section on type aliases.
That is all there is to say about it.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
