[fpc-devel] FP 2.4 questions

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Mattias Gärtner wrote:

> Zitat von Michael Van Canneyt <michael at freepascal.org>:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Mattias Gärtner wrote:
> >
> > > Zitat von Marc Weustink <marc.weustink at cuperus.nl>:
> > >
> > > > Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 11:08:27 +0100 (CET)
> > > > > marcov at stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>>> Then I don't get why people refuse that lazarus is recompiled and
> > > > >>>> see dyn. loaded packages as _the_ solution to this "problem" :)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> Is there another solution that makes it possible to compile and
> > > > >>> test a (future) visual component before installing it and with a
> > > > >>> simple click-click action add it to the component library (even if
> > > > >>> this involves waiting some minutes).
> > > > >> No. Not even Delphi has that. The property editors and component
> > > > >> registrations must be known to the visual environment.
> > > > >
> > > > > It depends on how much IDE stuff the package needs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Property Editors can be tested without the IDE by using the RTTI
> > > > > controls.
> > > >  >
> > > > > New codetools features can be tested without the IDE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some IDE parts can be tested with the SimpleIDEIntf package
> > > > > components/simpleideintf/simpleideintf.lpk. This package simulates a
> > > > > simple IDE to allow testing IDE experts at command line. It fills
> > > > > several objects and functions of the IDEIntf.
> > > > >
> > > > > Experts and Component Editors need the whole IDE.
> > > >
> > > > Properties (and I think component editors too) can also be tested with
> > > > the ObjectInspector example.
> > >
> > > Right.
> > > Component editors are the menu items for the designer. These can not be
> > tested
> > > without the designer. But if the menu item only starts a dialog to edit a
> > > control, then you can test that dialog in a simple project.
> > > Hmm, maybe an article can be written about that.
> >
> > Is this a hint for me ? :-)
> 
> Naah, just thinking loud. ;)
> Will you write it?

If you meant for toolbox: sure :-)

Michael.