> But pas2js exists, I believe it is important, and that explains my decision.
OK. I will have to accept this decision :) Well I see your arguments (Pas2js compatibility + you feel Delphi design is "horror" :) ). Even if I do see a different decision as more optimal. For the sake of clarity, I don't really agree with your statement """The 'less confusion' argument is invalidated if you apply it randomly to some particular feature and not to others.""". That is: We do not need to achieve perfect alignment with Delphi in all features, and it's not something I propose, and even if I would push for it some day -- I would say this would have to work both ways (that is, Delphi should also adjust to some decisions from FPC). But that's a discussion for other thread(s). I think that "aligning with Delphi" in this case, multi-line strings (without extrapolating it into any general rule "we resign from FPC-specific language features") has value. We would not follow alignment with Delphi "randomly" -- we would follow alignment when it is easy to achieve (2 syntaxes for multi-line strings achieve the same feature, *and* it it not a feature yet used by FPC developers, only in Pas2js). Anyhow, that was just for clarity :) I believe I understand your point of view, that's OK. To be clear, I fully agree that Pas2js, FPC+WebAssembly, are very important. Bringing Pascal to the web browser is a big achievement of FPC/Pas2js developers, and we love it in Castle Game Engine :) Regards, Michalis _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
