David Heffernan

Yes. Same argument applies. I use delphi because I have a huge code base written in Delphi. If I was starting from scratch I would categorically not use delphi.

Yes. Same argument applies.

Fossil would be a weird choice. Regardless of how good it is, it's not widespread. git is everywhere, and has so much tooling and resources available. Very hard to see past it.

This __imp_ mangling, IIRC, is used by ms tools when linking using a import lib. Delphi links to DLLs in a different way. Not sure if the difference is important. If it were me I'd compile each source file individually using cl and then link those. Although I don't like to do that very much. It's tempting to be able to link objects statically. But it's fraught with difficulties. It's fiddly. And under x64 you have a further problem. The Delphi compiler doesn't respect the meta data in the object file describing the exception tables. So if exceptions are raised in the linked C code, then it's common for the process to be terminated forcefully. These days I always prefer to link to DLLs using an sxs assembly to avoid problems with dll search paths.

How did you compile the C code?

As for backups with git you can use a cloud repo in addition to any local ones to give you extra redundancy.

The revision control comments are on topic. Revision control is a key part of how you develop new features in an existing code base.

Every effective programmer understands the value of revision control

You only feel the need to develop in such an isolated fashion because you don't use revision control. If you had revision control you'd branch and develop your feature. You'd run your existing tests to prove that you had not damaged existing code. Why do you resist using revision control? It will make you far more productive and effective.

You should drop everything and fix this. I'm sure we've told you this before. We were right then, we are right now.

"with as do" is not a thing in its own right. There is with (expr) do. And here we see as used in an expression. We are just composing different aspects of the language.

LSP isn't about changing the language warning definitions. Never give up hope is a strange message. Keep hoping if that hope is justified.

All problems relating to with could be solved by the compiler warning about such collisions.

More clarity in the question. Full details of error, and a minimal reproduction. And don't post criticism for not receiving a response immediately. That does not motivate people.

Given that so much that is actually important is broken, this should be way down the list of priorities.

Not sure this approach is helpful.

No I don't think it does make them managed records. I don't really understand how such simple code could break the compiler. It's as if Embarcadero don't have comprehensive tests in place.

Will it compile if you restore the constraint but specify the generic type explicitly instead of relying of type inference?

This is just not true.

Security is not a property of the language. It's a property of the code. And the code is written by programmers. They determine how secure a piece of code is, not the choice of language. Hard to see how that brings security.

Yes.

If you don't have a performance bottleneck, make sure that you use a version of the code that is easy to read and maintain.

Do you have a performance bottleneck with this code?

You can get help in the community version I believe. But in any case it's all online.

There is no buzz. Where are all the new developers?