Am 19.02.2018 um 11:10 schrieb Sven Barth via Lazarus:
> As long as the code does not rely on undocumented behavior, yes. 
And therein lies the issue. Things that worked the same way for >25 years and
are mentioned explicitly in numerous secondary literature are considered
"undocumented". And whatever is the official documentation anyway - the
yellow-{blue,red} books? .hlp? .hxs? Docwiki? And in which translation?

Don't get me wrong: I *get* why the choices that were made needed to be made to
get cross-platform consistency within fpc. I even agree with most of them. I
just think it would be dishonest to pretend they weren't made. That was the
entire point of my earlier post.


Am 19.02.2018 um 13:51 schrieb Michael Van Canneyt via Lazarus:
> Do you have examples where it does not ?
I listed some right below. Mind you, none of them are esoteric corner-cases: the
Interface stuff is any LINQ-alike ever, PixelFormat means Scanline and blit
performance, etc.

>> That's kinda the opposite of what the technical definition of
>> "source-code compatible" means.
> Really? Where did you find this definition ?
Wikipedia. They make it about portability of the function of a program across
platforms (read: compilers).

> And that's all there is to say about it.
Indeed it is. Once one internalizes that there is at best accidental
compatibility, a lot of pain goes away. Just treat fpc as a completely different
language system with some deceptively named syntax modes, and you end up with a
pretty great compiler.

-- 
Regards,
Martok

Ceterum censeo b32079 esse sanandam.

-- 
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
Lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org
https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus

Reply via email to