[fpc-devel] Lazarus IDE searching units overwiev inquire (issue#10176 successor)

[Mattias Gaertner]

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:04:06 +0300
Andrey Gusev <ag888 at rambler.ru> wrote:

> I have ask to all at once.
> ==========================
> 
> * Mattias Gaertner <nc-gaertnma at netcologne.de> [Thu, 15 Nov 2007
> > You don't need to add every unit to a project or package. It is
> > sufficient to add the the directories to the unit search path.
> > But for update checks, and quick searches it is recommended to
> > assign every unit to a specific project or package
> 
> AG: i.e. with project->add unit ?

Yes. Or Project Inspector / Add / Add files.


> ----------------
> 
> > If a directory is not in the unit search path, then it will not get 
> the
> > project settings.
> 
> AG: From which (search) paths, have a few tunables ?

Sorry, my english is not good enough. What do you mean?


> ----------------
> 
> > Because the IDE does not apply the project settings to everything 
> (like
> > Delphi), the developer finds dangling units quickly and the units
> > can use only those units, that they should use. This reduces version
> > conflicts, accidental auto rebuilds and context switches.
> 
> AG: That is all fine, but the full control ability (of search
> process) interested to me !

What do you mean with interested in full control ability?
Do you want to know all places/flags that control the final unit
search path? Or do you want one more possibility to control/setup the
unit search path?

 
> ----------------
> 
> >AG> ...
> >AG> knowledge... In present IDE behave itself as old bore, or as
> >AG> accountant, it's more clever in expectations.
> Mattias> Can you give an example?
> 
> AG: What example?, that IDE behaviour remember to me an old bore ? :)

An example how to improve it.


> ----------------
> 
> Vincent Snijders>Yiu can compile the IDE with fpc 2.2.0 and develop 
> applications with fpc
>                 > 2.3.1.
> 
> AG: You right, for my production-critical tasks i will have deed just 
> so.
> 
> =====================
> and last
> 
> A have construct a quite simple sample, that demonstrates 
> FPC231<=>Lazarus lacks.
> It is only simplified exposition of #10176 issue. I will bring new 
> issue, as soon as
> manits will available. As was supposed by me, the presence of my own 
> form ancestor
> is essential to "unit-read-error" revealing (the IDE-old-bor'ity :) )

The IDE now skips silently missing units when searching for ancestor
forms.

 
> A think, that discuss subject "Must IDE editor be such intelligent
> (in syntax comprehension sense) as compiler, or syntax highlighting
> is enough ?"
> would be useful.
> What thoughts developers respected about this ?


Mattias