On Wed, 11 May 2016, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 11.05.2016 14:42 schrieb "Maciej Izak" <hnb.c...@gmail.com>:
2016-05-11 14:23 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org>:
Where is that written ? As far as I know, it is only there because
classes
is there, and classes has some define to allow it to be compiled with
fgl.
by Sven (29 January 2016 10:54 thread "Generics.Collections as package
for Lazarus or package for FPC RTL"):
"also fgl is a nice test durog cycling the compiler that nothing basic
was broken with generics; one of the main reason it's still in rtl and not
rtl-objpas or rtl-extra"
keeping module in RTL just to have nice test to check compiler cycle is
... very very very strange.
And I stand by that decision. Generics are a rather frickle feature and I
want to know of critical failures as early as possible (and yes, I've made
use of that already numerous times!), thus I prefer fgl to be part of the
cycling and unlike fcl-stl or these Delphi compatible ones the fgl unit is
comparatively small.
Sven, you must run the testsuite for this.
So do Jonas and Florian. That is what it is for.
I have no doubt that generics are frickle. So are many other features.
So this is in its core a lazyness argument, which I think is not very correct.
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
