[Lazarus] Documentation style

[Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho]

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Hans-Peter Diettrich
<DrDiettrich1 at aol.com> wrote:
> I see absolutely no reason why the LCL should reside in a package of a
> different name, and a package named LCL refers to something else.

I must say that I it seams to me that the inverse order would make more sense:

The LCL package containing forms, comctrls, etc, and depending on a
package called LCLBase which has the widgetset interface units for
carbon, gtk, etc.

But I don't know why the current dependency direction was choosen, so
I don't know if it is really required or not.

> Once again the core developers deliberately break compatibility, for nothing
> but lazyness, and to hide a stupid decision, made before :-(

Please control your language.

-- 
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho